IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v25y2016i6p768-777.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuation of Child Health‐Related Quality of Life in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin M. Craig
  • Wolfgang Greiner
  • Derek S. Brown
  • Bryce B. Reeve

Abstract

Many economic analyses fail to incorporate evidence on child health‐related quality of life because of a paucity of quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) estimates. This health valuation study is the first to summarize the EQ‐5D‐Y on a QALY scale. Drawn from a nationally representative panel, 5207 adult respondents were asked to choose between two losses in child health‐related quality of life. Based on their choices, a 1‐year increase in child pain/discomfort from ‘some’ to ‘a lot’ equals a loss of 4 QALYs (95% CI, 3.8–4.4). Likewise, a 1‐year increase in child anxiety/depression from ‘a bit’ to ‘very worried, sad, or unhappy’ equals a loss of 2 QALYs (95% CI, 1.9–2.2). These findings enable the integration of child‐reported outcomes with adult preferences to inform economic analysis. Results inform both clinical practice and resource allocation decisions by enhancing understanding of difficult tradeoffs in child‐reported outcomes. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin M. Craig & Wolfgang Greiner & Derek S. Brown & Bryce B. Reeve, 2016. "Valuation of Child Health‐Related Quality of Life in the United States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6), pages 768-777, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:25:y:2016:i:6:p:768-777
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3184
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3184?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. William J Furlong & David H. Feeny & George W. Torrance & Ronald D. Barr, 2001. "The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) System for Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Clinical Studies," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 2001-02, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    2. David Feeny, 2013. "Standardization and Regulatory Guidelines May Inhibit Science and Reduce the Usefulness of Analyses Based on the Application of Preference-Based Measures for Policy Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 316-319, April.
    3. Lancsar, Emily & Wildman, John & Donaldson, Cam & Ryan, Mandy & Baker, Rachel, 2011. "Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 466-478, March.
    4. Julie Ratcliffe & Leah Couzner & Terry Flynn & Michael Sawyer & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Leonie Burgess, 2011. "Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 15-27, January.
    5. Kristina Secnik & Louis S. Matza & Suzi Cottrell & Eric Edgell & Dominic Tilden & Sally Mannix, 2005. "Health State Utilities for Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Based on Parent Preferences in the United Kingdom," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(1), pages 56-70, January.
    6. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    7. Anonymous, 1958. "World Health Organization," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 391-394, July.
    8. Lisa Prosser & James Hammitt & Ron Keren, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 713-726, September.
    9. Benjamin M. Craig, 2009. "The duration effect: a link between TTO and VAS values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 217-225, February.
    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. Sesil Lim & Marcel F. Jonker & Mark Oppe & Bas Donkers & Elly Stolk, 2018. "Severity-Stratified Discrete Choice Experiment Designs for Health State Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1377-1389, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Cristina Valcárcel-Nazco & Yolanda Ramallo-Fariña & Renata Linertová & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Lidia García-Pérez & Pedro Serrano-Aguilar, 2022. "Health-Related Quality of Life and Perceived Burden of Informal Caregivers of Patients with Rare Diseases in Selected European Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-13, July.
    4. Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Marko Ogorevc, 2021. "EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Slovenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 463-471, April.

    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. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, 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. Martin Buxton & James Chambers, 2011. "What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 285-288, August.
    4. Natalia Soto-Coloballes, 2020. "The Development of Air Pollution in Mexico City," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, June.
    5. Unknown, 1964. "The World Food Budget: 1970," Foreign Agricultural Economic Report (FAER) 144071, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Jane K L Teh & Nai Peng Tey & Sor Tho Ng, 2014. "Ethnic and Gender Differentials in Non-Communicable Diseases and Self-Rated Health in Malaysia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-8, March.
    7. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    8. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    10. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    11. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    12. Erreygers, Guido & Van Ourti, Tom, 2011. "Measuring socioeconomic inequality in health, health care and health financing by means of rank-dependent indices: A recipe for good practice," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 685-694, July.
    13. Trevor Parmenter, 1994. "Quality of life as a concept and measurable entity," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 9-46, August.
    14. Karine Chevreul & Morgane Michel & Karen Berg Brigham & Julio López-Bastida & Renata Linertová & Juan Oliva-Moreno & Pedro Serrano-Aguilar & Manuel Posada-de-la-Paz & Domenica Taruscio & Arrigo Schiep, 2016. "Social/economic costs and health-related quality of life in patients with cystic fibrosis in Europe," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(1), pages 7-18, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Corneliu Bolbocean & Sylvia Pal & Stef Buuren & Peter J. Anderson & Peter Bartmann & Nicole Baumann & Jeanie L. Y. Cheong & Brian A. Darlow & Lex W. Doyle & Kari Anne I. Evensen & John Horwood & Marit, 2023. "Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Very Preterm or Very Low Birth Weight Adults: Evidence From an Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 93-105, January.
    17. Yiguo Sun & Thanasis Stengos, 2008. "The absolute health income hypothesis revisited: a semiparametric quantile regression approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 395-412, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Konstantin Tziridis & Jana Friedrich & Petra Brüeggemann & Birgit Mazurek & Holger Schulze, 2022. "Estimation of Tinnitus-Related Socioeconomic Costs in Germany," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-17, August.
    20. Genie, Mesfin G. & Nicoló, Antonio & Pasini, Giacomo, 2020. "The role of heterogeneity of patients’ preferences in kidney transplantation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    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:wly:hlthec:v:25:y:2016:i:6:p:768-777. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.