IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v13y2020i2d10.1007_s40271-019-00392-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Animation to Self-Report Health: A Randomized Experiment with Children

Author

Listed:
  • Carla Guerriero

    (Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II)

  • Neus Abrines Jaume

    (Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Foundation Trust)

  • Karla Diaz-Ordaz

    (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

  • Katherine Loraine Brown

    (Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Foundation Trust
    University College London)

  • Jo Wray

    (Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Foundation Trust
    University College London)

  • Joan Ashworth

    (Animation, Royal College of Art)

  • Matt Abbiss

    (Animation, Royal College of Art)

  • John Cairns

    (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

Abstract

Background The Child Health Utility-9D (CHU-9D) is the only generic preference-based measure specifically developed to elicit health-related quality of life directly from children aged 7–11 years. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of animation on a touch screen device (tablet) is a better way of collecting health status information from children aged 4–14 years compared to a traditional paper questionnaire. The specific research questions were firstly, do young children (4–7 years) find an animated questionnaire easier to understand; secondly, independent of age, is completion of an animated questionnaire easier for sick children in hospital settings; and thirdly, do children’s preferences for the different formats of the questionnaire vary by the age of the child. Methods Using a balanced cross-over trial, we administered different formats of the CHU-9D to 221 healthy children in a school setting and 217 children with health problems in a hospital setting. The study tested five versions of the CHU-9D questionnaire: paper text, tablet text, tablet still image, paper image and tablet animation. Results Our results indicated that the majority of the children aged 4–7 years found the CHU-9D questions easy to answer independent of the format of the questionnaire administered. Amongst children aged 7–14 with health problems, the format of questionnaire influenced understanding. Children aged 7–11 years found the tablet image and animation formats easier compared to text questionnaires, while the oldest children in hospital found text-based questionnaires easier compared to image and animation. Conclusion Children in all three age groups preferred animation on a tablet to other methods of assessment. Our results highlight the potential for using an animated preference-based measure to assess the health of children as young as 4 years.

Suggested Citation

  • Carla Guerriero & Neus Abrines Jaume & Karla Diaz-Ordaz & Katherine Loraine Brown & Jo Wray & Joan Ashworth & Matt Abbiss & John Cairns, 2020. "Using Animation to Self-Report Health: A Randomized Experiment with Children," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(2), pages 175-188, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00392-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00392-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-019-00392-9
    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/s40271-019-00392-9?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julie Ratcliffe & Elisabeth Huynh & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer & Terry Flynn, 2016. "Nothing About Us Without Us? A Comparison of Adolescent and Adult Health‐State Values for the Child Health Utility‐9D Using Profile Case Best–Worst Scaling," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 486-496, April.
    2. Katherine Stevens, 2011. "Assessing the performance of a new generic measure of health-related quality of life for children and refining it for use in health state valuation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 157-169, May.
    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. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    3. 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.
    4. Richard De Abreu Lourenço & Nancy Devlin & Kirsten Howard & Jason J. Ong & Julie Ratcliffe & Jo Watson & Esther Willing & Elisabeth Huynh, 2021. "Giving a Voice to Marginalised Groups for Health Care Decision Making," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 5-10, January.
    5. Chris Sampson;Martina Garau, 2019. "How Should We Measure Quality of Life Impact in Rare Disease? Recent Learnings in Spinal Muscular Atrophy," Briefing 002146, Office of Health Economics.
    6. Clara Mukuria & Donna Rowen & Sue Harnan & Andrew Rawdin & Ruth Wong & Roberta Ara & John Brazier, 2019. "An Updated Systematic Review of Studies Mapping (or Cross-Walking) Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life to Generic Preference-Based Measures to Generate Utility Values," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 295-313, June.
    7. Catherine Fantaguzzi & Elizabeth Allen & Alec Miners & Deborah Christie & Charles Opondo & Zia Sadique & Adam Fletcher & Richard Grieve & Chris Bonell & Russell M. Viner & Rosa Legood, 2018. "Health-related quality of life associated with bullying and aggression: a cross-sectional study in English secondary schools," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(5), pages 641-651, June.
    8. Joanna Coast, 2019. "Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 779-784, August.
    9. Joseph Kwon & Sarah Smith & Rakhee Raghunandan & Martin Howell & Elisabeth Huynh & Sungwook Kim & Thomas Bentley & Nia Roberts & Emily Lancsar & Kirsten Howard & Germaine Wong & Jonathan Craig & Stavr, 2023. "Systematic Review of the Psychometric Performance of Generic Childhood Multi-attribute Utility Instruments," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 559-584, July.
    10. Jeff Round, 2018. "Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 641-643, June.
    11. Russell Jago & Byron Tibbitts & Emily Sanderson & Emma L. Bird & Alice Porter & Chris Metcalfe & Jane E. Powell & Darren Gillett & Simon J. Sebire, 2019. "Action 3:30R: Results of a Cluster Randomised Feasibility Study of a Revised Teaching Assistant-Led Extracurricular Physical Activity Intervention for 8 to 10 Year Olds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, January.
    12. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    13. Donna Rowen & Clara Mukuria & Philip A. Powell & Allan Wailoo, 2022. "Exploring the Issues of Valuing Child and Adolescent Health States Using a Mixed Sample of Adolescents and Adults," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 479-488, May.
    14. Juan M. Ramos-Goñi & Mark Oppe & Elly Stolk & Koonal Shah & Simone Kreimeier & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin, 2020. "International Valuation Protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 653-663, July.
    15. Karin Dam Petersen & Gang Chen & Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Adolescent Populations: An Empirical Comparison of the CHU9D and the PedsQLTM 4.0 Short Form 15," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 29-37, February.
    16. Julie Ratcliffe & Terry Flynn & Frances Terlich & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer, 2012. "Developing Adolescent-Specific Health State Values for Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 713-727, August.
    17. Ruvini M. Hettiarachchi & Peter Arrow & Sameera Senanayake & Hannah Carter & David Brain & Richard Norman & Utsana Tonmukayawul & Lisa Jamieson & Sanjeewa Kularatna, 2023. "Developing an Australian utility value set for the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale-4D (ECOHIS-4D) using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1285-1296, November.
    18. Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Sonia Zhi Yi Soh & Le Ann Chen & Michael Herdman & Nan Luo, 2023. "Psychometric Properties of Generic Preference-Weighted Measures for Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 155-174, February.
    19. Carla Guerriero & Abrines Jaume N. & Diaz-Ordaz K. & Brown K. & Wray J. & Ashworth J. & Abbiss M. & Cairns J., 2018. "Using Animation to Self-report Health: a Randomized Experiment with Children," CSEF Working Papers 508, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    20. 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.

    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:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00392-9. 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: 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.