IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i2d10.1007_s40273-021-01107-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How are Child-Specific Utility Instruments Used in Decision Making in Australia? A Review of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Public Summary Documents

Author

Listed:
  • Cate Bailey

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Kim Dalziel

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Paula Cronin

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (University of Technology Sydney)

Abstract

Measuring and valuing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in children can be challenging but is an important component for providing decision makers with accurate information to fund new interventions, including medicines and vaccines for public subsidy. We review funding submissions of medicines made to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee contained in public summary documents to examine the use of child-specific HRQOL measures in decision making in Australia. A sample frame of medicines used by children was derived from four sources. Public summary documents relating to these medicines were searched in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee web resources for whether they related to children (aged under 18 years) and contained HRQOL information and/or cost-utility analyses. Data about the use of utilities in decision making were extracted and analysed. Of the 1889 public summary documents available, 62 public summary documents (29 medicines) contained information pertaining to children and utilities. Of these, four public summary documents included child-specific HRQOL measures, 16 included adult HRQOL measures, 11 included direct elicitation and the HRQOL source was not defined in 31 documents. Excluding documents using child-specific HRQOL measures, we considered that in 85% of medicines, decision making uncertainty might have been reduced by using child-specific HRQOL measures. Despite the growing literature on economic analysis in paediatric populations, the use of child-specific HRQOL measures in submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee was minimal. Submissions involved inconsistent approaches, use of adult measures and weights, and substantial gaps in evidence. We recommend the consistent use of child-specific measures to improve the evidence base for decisions about medicines for children in Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • Cate Bailey & Kim Dalziel & Paula Cronin & Nancy Devlin & Rosalie Viney, 2022. "How are Child-Specific Utility Instruments Used in Decision Making in Australia? A Review of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Public Summary Documents," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 157-182, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01107-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01107-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01107-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-021-01107-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01107-5. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.