IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v17y2024i1d10.1007_s40271-023-00657-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fighting to Breathe and Fighting for Health-Related Quality of Life: Measuring the Impact of Being Dependent on Technology for Breathing on the Child and Their Caregiver

Author

Listed:
  • Janine Verstraete

    (Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, Division of Medicine)

  • Christopher Booth

    (Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, Division of Medicine)

  • Jane Booth

    (Christian Barnard Memorial Hospital)

  • Shazia Peer

    (H-53 OMB, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory
    Red Cross War Memorial Children’s Hospital)

  • Jessica McGuire

    (H-53 OMB, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory
    Red Cross War Memorial Children’s Hospital)

  • Fiona Kritzinger

    (Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, Division of Medicine)

  • Taryn Gray

    (Christian Barnard Memorial Hospital)

  • Noluthando Zibi

    (Red Cross War Memorial Children’s Hospital)

  • Primrose Shabangu

    (Red Cross War Memorial Children’s Hospital)

  • Marco Zampoli

    (Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, Division of Medicine
    Red Cross War Memorial Children’s Hospital)

Abstract

Background and Objective Medical advancement has enabled children to survive congenital airway anomalies, rare diseases and critical illnesses with medical technology including tracheostomies and long-term ventilation to support breathing. This study aimed to assess (1) the validity of the EQ-TIPS and EQ-5D-Y-3L in children dependent on technology and (2) the impact of caring for these children on the EQ-5D-5L and CarerQoL. Methods Caregivers of children aged 1 month to 18 years completed the EQ-TIPS or EQ-5D-Y-3L, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) and Paediatric Tracheostomy Health Status Instrument (PTHSI) to reflect the child’s health. In addition, caregivers self-completed the EQ-5D-5L and CarerQoL. Reports of problems on EQ dimensions were compared across age groups with the Fisher’s exact test. Spearman and Pearson’s correlation coefficients and Kruskal–Wallis H-test were used to explore the association between caregiver and child scores, concurrent validity, and known-group validity of the EQ-TIPS and EQ-5D-Y-3L. Results Responses from 144 caregivers were collected, 66 for children aged 1 month to 4 years completing EQ-TIPS and 78 for children aged 5–18 years completing EQ-5D-Y-3L. The EQ-TIPS showed a higher report of no problems for social interaction for children aged 1–12 months (p = 0.040) than the older age groups, there were however no differences in the level sum score (LSS) or EQ Visual Analogue Scale scores between the age groups. The EQ-5D-Y-3L showed a significantly less report of problems for mobility (p = 0.013) and usual activities (p = 0.006) for children aged 5–7 years compared with children aged 8–12 and children aged 13–18 years. Similarly, the 5–7 years of age group had a significantly lower EQ-5D-Y-3L LSS compared with the older groups (H = 12.08, p = 0.002). The EQ-TIPS and EQ-5D-Y-3L showed moderate-to-strong associations with the PedsQL. EQ-TIPS median LSS was able to differentiate between groups on the clinical prognosis with a better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in those where weaning from technology is possible compared with those where weaning is not possible (H = 18.98, p = 0.011). The EQ-5D-Y-3L can discriminate between breathing technology, where those with only a tracheostomy reported better HRQoL (H = 8.92, p = 0.012), and between mild and moderate clinical severity (H = 19.42, p

Suggested Citation

  • Janine Verstraete & Christopher Booth & Jane Booth & Shazia Peer & Jessica McGuire & Fiona Kritzinger & Taryn Gray & Noluthando Zibi & Primrose Shabangu & Marco Zampoli, 2024. "Fighting to Breathe and Fighting for Health-Related Quality of Life: Measuring the Impact of Being Dependent on Technology for Breathing on the Child and Their Caregiver," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(1), pages 65-82, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00657-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00657-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-023-00657-4
    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/s40271-023-00657-4?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. Garber, Alan M. & Phelps, Charles E., 1997. "Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-31, February.
    2. 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.
    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. Glenn Jenkins & Chun-Yan Kuo & Arnold C. Harberger, 2011. "Cost-Benefit Analysis for Investment Decisions: Chapter 15 (Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis)," Development Discussion Papers 2011-15, JDI Executive Programs.
    2. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & G. Ardine de Wit & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2007. "Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a ‘perfect’ cost–utility ratio," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 421-433, April.
    3. Mira Johri & Laura J. Damschroder & Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention‐type matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 669-678, July.
    4. Scott Johnson & Matthew Davis & Anna Kaltenboeck & Howard Birnbaum & ElizaBeth Grubb & Marcy Tarrants & Andrew Siderowf, 2011. "Early retirement and income loss in patients with early and advanced Parkinson’s disease," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 367-376, November.
    5. Richard H. Chapman & Marc Berger & Milton C. Weinstein & Jane C. Weeks & Sue Goldie & Peter J. Neumann, 2004. "When does quality‐adjusting life‐years matter in cost‐effectiveness analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 429-436, May.
    6. David Bardey & Philippe de Donder & Vera Zaporozhets, 2024. "The health technology assessment approach of the economic value of diagnostic tests: a literature review," Working Papers hal-04472485, HAL.
    7. Schneider, Udo & Zerth, Jürgen, 2008. "Improving prevention compliance through appropriate incentives," MPRA Paper 8280, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Joel Thompson & Amir Abdolahi & Katia Noyes, 2013. "Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 455-469, June.
    9. Cutler, David, 2007. "The Lifetime Costs and Benefits of Medical Technology," Scholarly Articles 2643640, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    10. Smith, Richard D. & Richardson, Jeff, 2005. "Can we estimate the `social' value of a QALY?: Four core issues to resolve," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 77-84, September.
    11. David Meltzer & Magnus Johannesson, 1999. "Inconsistencies in the "Societal Perspective" on Costs of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 371-377, October.
    12. Glenn Jenkins & CHUN-YAN KUO & JOHN GIRALDEZ, 2007. "Canadian Regulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide," Development Discussion Papers 2007-03, JDI Executive Programs.
    13. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.
    14. Michaud, Pierre-Carl & Goldman, Dana P. & Lakdawalla, Darius N. & Zheng, Yuhui & Gailey, Adam H., 2012. "The value of medical and pharmaceutical interventions for reducing obesity," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 630-643.
    15. Philipson Tomas J & Jena Anupam B, 2006. "Who Benefits from New Medical Technologies? Estimates of Consumer and Producer Surpluses for HIV/AIDS Drugs," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-33, January.
    16. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Jaeger, William K. & Egelkraut, Thorsten M., 2011. "Biofuel economics in a setting of multiple objectives and unintended consequences," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4320-4333.
    18. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Mark Pauly & Fredric E. Blavin & Sudha Meghan, 2008. "Is There a Market for Voluntary Health Insurance in Developing Countries?," NBER Working Papers 14095, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Johan J. Polder & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2011. "Economic evaluation and the postponement of health care costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 432-445, 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:17:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00657-4. 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.