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
Corresponding Author
Julie Ratcliffe
Flinders Health Economics Group, Flinders University, Australia
Correspondence to: Flinders Health Economics Group, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA 5001, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorElisabeth Huynh
Institute for Choice, University of South Australia, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorKatherine Stevens
Health Economics and Decision Science, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Search for more papers by this authorJohn Brazier
Health Economics and Decision Science, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Search for more papers by this authorMichael Sawyer
Discipline of Paediatrics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorTerry Flynn
Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Julie Ratcliffe
Flinders Health Economics Group, Flinders University, Australia
Correspondence to: Flinders Health Economics Group, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA 5001, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorElisabeth Huynh
Institute for Choice, University of South Australia, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorKatherine Stevens
Health Economics and Decision Science, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Search for more papers by this authorJohn Brazier
Health Economics and Decision Science, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Search for more papers by this authorMichael Sawyer
Discipline of Paediatrics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorTerry Flynn
Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
The main objective of this study was to compare and contrast adolescent and adult values for the Child Health Utility-9D (CHU9D), a new generic preference-based measure of health-related quality of life designed for application in the economic evaluation of treatment and preventive programmes for children and adolescents. Previous studies have indicated that there may be systematic differences in adolescent and adult values for identical health states. An online survey including a series of best–worst scaling discrete choice experiment questions for health states defined by the CHU9D was administered to two general population samples comprising adults and adolescents, respectively. The results highlight potentially important age-related differences in the values attached to CHU9D dimensions. Adults, in general, placed less weight upon impairments in mental health (worried, sad, annoyed) and more weight upon moderate to severe levels of pain relative to adolescents. The source of values (adults or adolescents) has important implications for economic evaluation and may impact significantly upon healthcare policy. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
References
- Al Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J. 2011. Estimation of a preference-based carer experience scale. Medical Decision Making 21: 458–468.
- Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A. 2012. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics 31: 306–318.
- Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A. 2007. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford: University Press.
- Coast J, Flynn T, Natarajan L et al. 2008. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Social Science and Medicine 67: 874–992.
- Craig B, Busschbach J, Salomon J. 2009. Keep it simple: ranking health states yields values similar to cardinal measurement approaches. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62: 296–305.
- Finn A. Louviere J. 1992.Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 11: 12–25.
- Flynn T. 2010. Valuing citizen and patient preference in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcome Research 10: 259–267.
- Flynn TN, Huynh E, Peters TJ et al. 2013. Scoring the ICECAP-A capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Economics (in press, accepted 8 October 2013).
- Flynn T, Louviere J, Marley A et al. 2008a. Rescaling quality of life tariffs from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale. Population Health Metrics 6: 6.
- Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. 2007. Best-Worst Scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. Journal of Health Economics 26: 171–189.
- Flynn T, Louviere J, Peters T et al. 2008b. Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using best-worst scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology 8: 76.
- Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J. 2005. Quality adjusted life years lack quality in paediatric care: a critical review of published studies. Paediatrics 115: 600–614.
- Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W. 2005. Applied Choice Analysis, A Primer: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511610356 Google Scholar
- Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
- Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. 2008. Probabilistic models of Set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 52: 281–296.
- McFadden D. 1973. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour. California: University of California at Berkley.
- Moodie M, Richardson J, Rankin B et al. 2010. Predicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four pacific countries using the AQoL-6D instrument. Value in Health 13: 1014–1027.
- National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. 2009. A healthier future for all Australians- Final Report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. Commonwealth of Australia.
- Norquist G, McGuire T, Essock S. 2008. Cost effectiveness of depression treatment for adolescents American Journal of Psychiatry 165: 549–552.
- Petrou S. 2003. Methodological issues raised by preference based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Economics 12: 697–702.
- Ratcliffe J, Couzner L, Flynn T et al. 2011. Assessing the feasibility of applying best worst scaling discrete choice methods to value Child Health Utility 9D health states in a young adolescent sample. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 9: 15–27.
- Ratcliffe J, Flynn T, Terlich F et al. 2012a. Developing adolescent specific health state values for economic evaluation: an application of profile case best worst scaling to the Child Health Utility-9D. PharmacoEconomics 30: 713–727.
- Ratcliffe J, Stevens K, Brazier J et al. 2012b. An assessment of the construct validity of the CHU9D in the Australian adolescent general population. Quality of Life Research 21: 717–725.
- Resnick D, Catalano R, Sawyer S et al. 2012. Seizing the opportunities of adolescent health. The Lancet 379: 1564–1567.
- Ryan M, Netten A, Skatun D et al. 2005. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference based measure of outcome - an application to social care for older people. Journal of Health Economics 25: 927–944.
- Sawyer S, Afifi R, Bearinger L et al. 2012. Adolescence: a foundation for future health. The Lancet 379: 1630–1640.
- Sloane N (2007). A library of orthogonal arrays. Available at: http://neilsloane.com/oadir/.
- Stevens K. 2009. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health related quality of life for children. Quality of Life Research 18: 1105–1113.
- Stevens K. 2010. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based generic paediatric health related quality of life measure. Qualitative Health Research 20: 340–351.
- Stevens K. 2011. Assessing the performance of a new generic measure of health related quality of life for children and refining it for use in health state valuation. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 9: 1–13.
10.2165/11587350-000000000-00000 Google Scholar
- Stevens K. 2012. Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index. PharmacoEconomics 30: 729–747.
- Stevens K, Ratcliffe J. 2012. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation in adolescence: an assessment of the practicality and validity of the Child Health Utility 9D in the Australian adolescent population. Value in Health 15: 1092–1099.
- Swait J, Louviere J. 1993. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 30(3): 305–314.
- Swait J. 2006. Advanced choice models. In Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice, Chapter 9, K Barbara, (ed.), Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Springer, October 2006.
- Ungar W. 2011. Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation: are QALYs contraindicated? PharmacoEconomics 29: 641–652.
- Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G et al. 2010. Development of the EQ-5DY: a child friendly version of the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research 19: 875–886.
- Williams P, Holmbeck G, Greenley R. 2002. Adolescent health psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 70: 828–842.
