IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v43y2025i7d10.1007_s40273-025-01494-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do the Age of Children and Parental Status Matter in Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D)?

Author

Listed:
  • Xiuqin Xiong

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Li Huang

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Natalie Carvalho

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Kim Dalziel

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (University of Melbourne)

Abstract

Objectives This study aims to test whether preferences for children’s health states differ (a) when considering those aged 2–4 years compared with older children and (b) by parental status; we also aim to provide a value set that can be used for 2–4 years old. Methods Health states were described using the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D). A discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was administered between September 2023 and March 2024 to a representative sample of the Australian general adult population which included a 20% quota of parents of 0–18-year-old children. Participants were randomly allocated to two study arms considering the health of a 2–4-year-old or a 10-year-old child. A conditional logit model was used to obtain the latent values from the choice responses. The differences in latent values between the two ages and between parental status were analyzed using relative attribute importance (RAI), poolability test, and pooled model with interaction terms. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) responses were used to anchor the latent values onto a 0–1 utility scale. Results In all, 3112 participants were included. Results suggested that the preferences between the two age perspectives were similar, with only 1 out of 36 interaction terms being significant. Preferences of parents of children aged 0–18 years differed from those who were not, as indicated by three significant interaction terms and failure in poolability testing, having smaller disutility for severe health states in the Pain, Tired, and Joining in Activities dimensions. Conclusion In the valuation of CHU9D health states, asking respondents to consider a 2–4-year-old compared with a 10-year-old did not influence adults’ preferences; however, the preferences of respondents who were parents of 0–18-year-olds at that time differed from those who were not. Two CHU9D value sets are reported for children 2 years and older, one derived from the general adult population and the other from parents.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiuqin Xiong & Li Huang & Natalie Carvalho & Kim Dalziel & Nancy Devlin, 2025. "Do the Age of Children and Parental Status Matter in Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D)?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(7), pages 819-833, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-025-01494-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01494-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-025-01494-z
    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/s40273-025-01494-z?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:43:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-025-01494-z. 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.