Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)
Objectives The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of estimating preference weights for all health states defined by the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D), a new generic measure of health related quality of life for children. This will allow the calculation of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for use in paediatric economic evaluation. Methods Valuation interviews were undertaken with 300 members of the UK adult general population using standard gamble and ranking valuation methods. Regression modelling was undertaken to estimate models that could predict a value for every health state defined by the CHU9D. A range of models were tested and evaluated based on their predictive performance. Results Models estimated on the standard gamble data performed better than the rank model. All models had a few inconsistencies or insignificant levels and so further modelling was done to estimate a parsimonious consistent regression model, by combining inconsistent levels and removing non significant levels. The final preferred model was an OLS model where all coefficients were significant, there were no inconsistencies and the model had the best predictive performance. Conclusion This research has demonstrated it is feasible to value the CHU9D descriptive system and preference weights for each health state can be generated to allow the calculation of QALYs. The CHU9D can now be used in the economic evaluation of paediatric health care interventions. Further research is needed to investigate the impact of children’s preferences for the health states and what methods could be used to obtain these preferences.
|Date of creation:||2010|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tara Symonds & Martin Brown, 2009. "Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1261-1276.
- McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
- Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
- Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua A. & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2007. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198569824.
- Christopher McCabe & Katherine Stevens & Jennifer Roberts & John Brazier, 2006. "Erratum to 'Health state values for the health utilities index mark 2 descriptive system: results from a UK valuation survey' Health Economics 2005; 14 (3): 231-244," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 761-761.
- G Torrance & Y Zhang & D Feeny & W Furlong & R Barr, 1992. "Multi-attribute Utility Functions for a Comprehensive Health Status Classification System: Health Utilities Index Mark 2," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1992-18, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:29938. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.