IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i3p277-305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Childhood Health Utilities

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph Kwon

    (Department of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK)

  • Sung Wook Kim

    (Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK)

  • Wendy J. Ungar

    (Program of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada)

  • Kate Tsiplova

    (Program of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada
    Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada)

  • Jason Madan

    (Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK)

  • Stavros Petrou

    (Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK)

Abstract

Background. A common feature of most reviews or catalogues of health utilities has been their focus on adult health states or derivation of values from adult populations. More generally, utility measurement in or on behalf of children has been constrained by several methodological concerns. The objective of this study was to conduct the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of primary utility data for childhood conditions and descriptors, and to determine the effects of methodological factors on childhood utilities. Methods. The review followed PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, EconLit, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched for primary studies reporting health utilities for childhood conditions or descriptors using direct or indirect valuation methods. The Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE) Porject was also searched for cost-utility analyses with primary utility values. Mean or median utilities for each of the main samples were catalogued, and weighted averages of utilities for each health condition were estimated, by valuation method. Mixed-effects meta-regression using hierarchical linear modeling was conducted for the most common valuation methods to estimate the utility decrement for each health condition category relative to general childhood population health, as well as the independent effects of methodological factors. Results. The literature searches resulted in 272 eligible studies. These yielded 3,414 utilities when all sub-groups were considered, covering all ICD-10 chapters relevant to childhood health, 19 valuation methods, 12 respondent types, 8 modes of administration, and data from 36 countries. A total of 1,191 utility values were obtained when only main study samples were considered, and these were catalogued by health condition or descriptor, and methodological characteristics. 1,073 mean utilities for main samples were used for fixed-effects meta-analysis by health condition and valuation method. Mixed-effects meta-regressions estimated that 53 of 76 ICD-10 delineated health conditions, valued using the HUI3, were associated with statistically significant utility decrements relative to general population health, whereas 38 of 57 valued using a visual analog scale (VAS) were associated with statistically significant VAS decrements. For both methods, parental proxy assessment was associated with overestimation of values, whereas adolescents reported lower values than children under 12 y. VAS responses were more heavily influenced by mode of administration than the HUI3. Conclusion. Utilities and their associated distributions, as well as the independent contributions of methodological factors, revealed by this systematic review and meta-analysis can inform future economic evaluations within the childhood context.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:3:p:277-305
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17732990
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17732990
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17732990?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. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. John Brazier & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya & Donna Rowen, 2010. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 215-225, April.
    3. Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe, 2015. "A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments for Paediatric Populations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(10), pages 1013-1028, October.
    4. 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.
    5. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    6. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    3. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    4. 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).
    5. Kim Dalziel & Max Catchpool & Borja García-Lorenzo & Inigo Gorostiza & Richard Norman & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2020. "Feasibility, Validity and Differences in Adolescent and Adult EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation in Australia and Spain: An Application of Best–Worst Scaling," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 499-513, May.
    6. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    7. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. 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.
    10. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    11. Zhongliang Zhou & Yu Fang & Zhiying Zhou & Dan Li & Dan Wang & Yanli Li & Li Lu & Jianmin Gao & Gang Chen, 2017. "Assessing Income-Related Health Inequality and Horizontal Inequity in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 241-256, May.
    12. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    13. Arthur E. Attema & Marieke Krol & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2018. "New findings from the time trade-off for income approach to elicit willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 277-291, March.
    14. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Marko Ogorevc, 2021. "EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Slovenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 463-471, April.
    16. Daniel M. Hausman, 2010. "Valuing health: a new proposal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 280-296, March.
    17. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, 2010. "A Review and Critique of Studies Reporting Utility Values for Schizophrenia-Related Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(12), pages 1109-1121, December.
    18. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    19. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.

    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:38:y:2018:i:3:p:277-305. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.