Considerations Around the Inclusion of Children and Young People’s Time in Economic Evaluation: Findings from an International Delphi Study

Background People’s time is a finite resource and a valuable input that ought to be considered in economic evaluations taking a broad, societal perspective. Yet, evaluations of interventions focusing on children and young people (CYP) rarely account for the opportunity cost of time in this population. As a key reason for this, health economists have pointed to uncertainty around when it is appropriate to include CYP time-related costs in an economic evaluation and highlighted the lack of clear guidance on the topic. Methods With this in mind, we carried out a Delphi study to establish a list of relevant considerations for researchers to utilise whilst making decisions about whether and when to include CYP time in their economic evaluations. Delphi panellists were asked to propose and rate a set of possible considerations and provide additional thoughts on their ratings. Ratings were summarised using descriptive statistics, and text comments were interrogated through thematic analysis. Findings A total of 73 panellists across 16 countries completed both rounds of a two-round Delphi study. Panellists’ ratings showed that, when thinking about whether to include displaced CYP time in an economic evaluation, it is very important to consider whether: (1) inclusion would be in line with specified perspective(s) (median score: 9), (2) CYP’s time may already be accounted for in other parts of the evaluation (median score: 8), (3) the amount of forgone time is substantial, either in absolute or relative terms (median score: 7) and (4) inclusion of CYP’s time costs would be of interest to decision-makers (median score: 7). Respondents thought that considerations such as (1) whether inclusion would be of interest to the research community (median score: 6), (2) whether CYP’s time displaced by receiving treatment is ‘school’ or ‘play’ time (median score: 5), and (3) whether CYP’s are old enough for their time to be considered valuable (median score: 5) are moderately important. A range of views was offered to support beliefs and ratings, many of which were underpinned by compelling normative questions.