IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i3p314-326.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of Direct Elicitation of Children’s Preferences for Health States

Author

Listed:
  • R. Trafford Crump
  • Lauren M. Beverung
  • Ryan Lau
  • Rita Sieracki
  • Mateo Nicholson

Abstract

Background. Children’s preferences for health states represent an important perspective when comparing the value of alternative health care interventions related to pediatric medicine, and are fundamental to comparative effectiveness research. However, there is debate over whether these preference data can be collected and used. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to establish psychometric properties of eliciting preferences for health states from children using direct methods. Data Sources. Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, EconLit. Study Selection. English studies, published after 1990, were identified using Medical Subject Headings or keywords. Results were reviewed to confirm that the study was based on: 1) a sample of children, and 2) preferences for health states. Data Extraction. Standardized data collection forms were used to record the preference elicitation method used, and any reported evidence regarding the validity, reliability, or feasibility of the method. Data Synthesis. Twenty-six studies were ultimately included in the analysis. The standard gamble and time tradeoff were the most commonly reported direct preference elicitation methods. Seven studies reported validity, four reported reliability, and nine reported feasibility. Of the validity reports, construct validity was assessed most often. Reliability reports typically involved interclass correlation coefficient. For feasibility, four studies reported completion rates. Limitations. The search was limited to four databases and restricted to English studies published after 1990. Only evidence available in published studies were considered; measurement properties may have been tested in pilot or pre-studies but were not published, and are not included in this review. Conclusion. The few studies found through this systematic review demonstrate that there is little empirical evidence on which to judge the use of direct preference elicitation methods with children regarding health states.

Suggested Citation

  • R. Trafford Crump & Lauren M. Beverung & Ryan Lau & Rita Sieracki & Mateo Nicholson, 2017. "Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of Direct Elicitation of Children’s Preferences for Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 314-326, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:314-326
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16671925
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16671925
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16671925?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stavros Petrou, 2003. "Methodological issues raised by preference‐based approaches to measuring the health status of children," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 697-702, August.
    2. Lisa Prosser & James Hammitt & Ron Keren, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 713-726, September.
    3. Lisa Prosser, 2012. "Comparative Effectiveness and Child Health," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 637-645, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lisa Prosser & Scott Grosse & Eve Wittenberg, 2012. "Health Utility Elicitation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 83-86, February.
    2. Wendy Ungar & Katherine Boydell & Sharon Dell & Brian Feldman & Deborah Marshall & Andrew Willan & James Wright, 2012. "A Parent-Child Dyad Approach to the Assessment of Health Status and Health-Related Quality of Life in Children with Asthma," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 697-712, August.
    3. Dominic Thorrington & Ken Eames, 2015. "Measuring Health Utilities in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of the Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Clazien Bouwmans & Annemarie Kolk & Mark Oppe & Saskia Schawo & Elly Stolk & Michel Agthoven & Jan Buitelaar & LeonaHakkaart Roijen, 2014. "Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D and the KIDSCREEN-10 in children with ADHD," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 967-977, December.
    5. Davidson, Marc D., 2013. "On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 171-177.
    6. Joseph Kwon & Sung Wook Kim & Wendy J. Ungar & Kate Tsiplova & Jason Madan & Stavros Petrou, 2018. "A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Childhood Health Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 277-305, April.
    7. Krupnick, Alan & Hoffmann, Sandra & Adamowicz, Wictor, 2005. "Economic Uncertainties in Valuing Reductions in Children's Environmental Health Risks," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-27, Resources for the Future.
    8. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    9. Dorothea Kesztyüs & Anja Schreiber & Tamara Wirt & Martina Wiedom & Jens Dreyhaupt & Susanne Brandstetter & Benjamin Koch & Olivia Wartha & Rainer Muche & Martin Wabitsch & Reinhold Kilian & Jürgen St, 2013. "Economic evaluation of URMEL-ICE, a school-based overweight prevention programme comprising metabolism, exercise and lifestyle intervention in children," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 185-195, April.
    10. Azusa Sato & Joan Costa-Font, 2014. "The Hedonic Procedural Effect of Traditional Medicines," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 1061-1084, October.
    11. Eckermann, Simon & Dawber, James & Yeatman, Heather & Quinsey, Karen & Morris, Darcy, 2014. "Evaluating return on investment in a school based health promotion and prevention program: The investment multiplier for the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden National Program," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 103-112.
    12. Eve Wittenberg & Lisa Prosser, 2011. "Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 225-241, July.
    13. Stavros Petrou & Emil Kupek, 2009. "Estimating Preference-Based Health Utilities Index Mark 3 Utility Scores for Childhood Conditions in England and Scotland," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 291-303, May.
    14. Rishworth, Andrea & Cao, Tiffany & Niraula, Ashika & Wilson, Kathi, 2023. "Navigating the quality-of-life impacts of a chronic inflammatory disease (CID) among South Asian children and parents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    15. Donna Rowen & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin & Julie Ratcliffe, 2020. "Review of Valuation Methods of Preference-Based Measures of Health for Economic Evaluation in Child and Adolescent Populations: Where are We Now and Where are We Going?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 325-340, April.
    16. Lisa Prosser, 2012. "Comparative Effectiveness and Child Health," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 637-645, August.
    17. J. Tilford & Nalin Payakachat & Erica Kovacs & Jeffrey Pyne & Werner Brouwer & Todd Nick & Jayne Bellando & Karen Kuhlthau, 2012. "Preference-Based Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 661-679, August.
    18. Lisa Prosser & James Hammitt & Ron Keren, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 713-726, September.
    19. Khadka, Jyoti & Kwon, Joseph & Petrou, Stavros & Lancsar, Emily & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2019. "Mind the (inter-rater) gap. An investigation of self-reported versus proxy-reported assessments in the derivation of childhood utility values for economic evaluation: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    20. Benjamin M. Craig & Wolfgang Greiner & Derek S. Brown & Bryce B. Reeve, 2016. "Valuation of Child Health‐Related Quality of Life in the United States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6), pages 768-777, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:314-326. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.