IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v38y2020i5d10.1007_s40273-020-00884-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Feasibility, Validity and Differences in Adolescent and Adult EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation in Australia and Spain: An Application of Best–Worst Scaling

Author

Listed:
  • Kim Dalziel

    (The University of Melbourne)

  • Max Catchpool

    (The University of Melbourne)

  • Borja García-Lorenzo

    (University of Barcelona
    Fundación Canaria de Investigación Sanitaria (FUNCANIS)
    Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network (REDISSEC))

  • Inigo Gorostiza

    (Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network (REDISSEC)
    Basurto University Hospital)

  • Richard Norman

    (Curtin University)

  • Oliver Rivero-Arias

    (Fundación Canaria de Investigación Sanitaria (FUNCANIS)
    Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network (REDISSEC)
    University of Oxford)

Abstract

Background The measurement and valuation of health-related quality of life for and by young people are increasingly important, yet research on the impact of study perspective and validity of preferences obtained from young populations remains limited. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and validity of collecting EQ-5D Youth version (EQ-5D-Y) preferences from adolescents, adults, and adults from a child perspective. Methods A profile case best–worst scaling (BWS) online survey was administered to representative Australian and Spanish adult (age ≥ 18 years) and child (age 11–17 years) samples. Adults were told to either answer from their own perspective or for a hypothetical 10-year-old child. Marginal best- and worst-choice frequencies, analysis of dominant choices, self-reported difficulty completing the tasks, and time to complete tasks were used to determine the validity of responses. Results In Australia, 2134 adults and 1010 adolescents completed the survey. In Spain, 2007 adults and 1000 adolescents completed it. Analysis of marginal choice frequencies and dominant choices indicated that the pattern of responses between adolescents and adults was similar. For Australian respondents, having no mobility problems was rated as best by adolescents, while adults rated having no pain and discomfort as ‘best’. In Spain, both adults and adolescents rated no pain or discomfort as ‘best’. Australian adolescents rated very worried, sad or unhappy as ‘worst’, while Spanish adolescents, Spanish adults and Australian adults rated a lot of pain and discomfort as ‘worst’. Conclusions Results suggest preferences from adolescents using direct BWS are valid. Our descriptive analysis also suggest that there are age-related and country-specific differences in elicitation values for the EQ-5D-Y.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00884-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00884-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00884-9
    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/s40273-020-00884-9?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. Christopher McCabe & Katherine Stevens & Jennifer Roberts & John Brazier, 2005. "Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 231-244, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Katherine Stevens & Sandra Bradley & Leah Couzner & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer & Rachel Roberts & Elisabeth Huynh & Terry Flynn, 2015. "Valuing Child Health Utility 9D Health States with Young Adults: Insights from a Time Trade Off Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 485-492, October.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Currie, Candace & Molcho, Michal & Boyce, William & Holstein, Bjørn & Torsheim, Torbjørn & Richter, Matthias, 2008. "Researching health inequalities in adolescents: The development of the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Family Affluence Scale," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(6), pages 1429-1436, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andronis, Lazaros & Morgan, Cameron & Donaldson, Cam & Lancsar, Emily & Petrou, Stavros, 2023. "Views, obstacles, and uncertainties around the inclusion of children and young people's time in economic evaluations: Findings from an international survey of health economists," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 333(C).
    2. Paul Mark Mitchell & Samantha Husbands & Sarah Byford & Philip Kinghorn & Cara Bailey & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2021. "Challenges in developing capability measures for children and young people for use in the economic evaluation of health and care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 1990-2003, September.
    3. Huang, Li & Devlin, Nancy & Chen, Gang & Dalziel, Kim, 2024. "A happiness approach to valuing health states for children," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Paul Mark Mitchell & Samantha Husbands & Sarah Byford & Philip Kinghorn & Cara Bailey & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2021. "Challenges in developing capability measures for children and young people for use in the economic evaluation of health and care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 1990-2003, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Huang, Li & Devlin, Nancy & Chen, Gang & Dalziel, Kim, 2024. "A happiness approach to valuing health states for children," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    7. Joseph Kwon & Louise Freijser & Elisabeth Huynh & Martin Howell & Gang Chen & Kamran Khan & Shahd Daher & Nia Roberts & Conrad Harrison & Sarah Smith & Nancy Devlin & Kirsten Howard & Emily Lancsar & , 2022. "Systematic Review of Conceptual, Age, Measurement and Valuation Considerations for Generic Multidimensional Childhood Patient-Reported Outcome Measures," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 379-431, April.
    8. Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Marko Ogorevc, 2021. "EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Slovenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 463-471, April.
    9. Husbands, Samantha & Mitchell, Paul Mark & Kinghorn, Philip & Byford, Sarah & Bailey, Cara & Anand, Paul & Peters, Tim J. & Floredin, Isabella & Coast, Joanna, 2024. "Is well-becoming important for children and young people? Evidence from in-depth interviews with children and young people and their parents," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122060, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. 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).
    11. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    12. S. A. Lipman & V. T. Reckers-Droog & M. Karimi & M. Jakubczyk & A. E. Attema, 2021. "Self vs. other, child vs. adult. An experimental comparison of valuation perspectives for valuation of EQ-5D-Y-3L health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1507-1518, December.
    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. 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.
    15. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tracey Young & Rachel Ibbotson, 2012. "It’s All in the Name, or Is It? The Impact of Labeling on Health State Values," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 31-40, January.
    16. Lidia Engel & Nick Bansback & Stirling Bryan & Mary M. Doyle-Waters & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2016. "Exclusion Criteria in National Health State Valuation Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(7), pages 798-810, October.
    17. Musal, R. Muzaffer & Soyer, Refik & McCabe, Christopher & Kharroubi, Samer A., 2012. "Estimating the population utility function: A parametric Bayesian approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 538-547.
    18. Kern, Matthias Robert & Heinz, Andreas & Stevens, Gonneke W.J.M. & Walsh, Sophie D. & Willems, Helmut, 2020. "“What's a normal weight?” – Origin and receiving country influences on weight-status assessment among 1.5 and 2nd generation immigrant adolescents in Europe," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    19. Fanni Rencz & Gábor Ruzsa & Alex Bató & Zhihao Yang & Aureliano Paolo Finch & Valentin Brodszky, 2022. "Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L in Hungary," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 205-215, December.
    20. Nielsen, Line & Koushede, Vibeke & Vinther-Larsen, Mathilde & Bendtsen, Pernille & Ersbøll, Annette Kjær & Due, Pernille & Holstein, Bjørn E., 2015. "Does school social capital modify socioeconomic inequality in mental health? A multi-level analysis in Danish schools," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 35-43.

    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:38:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00884-9. 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.