Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research

The construct validity of the Child Health Utility 9D-DK instrument

Authors: Karin Dam Petersen, Julie Ratcliffe, Gang Chen, Dorthe Serles, Christine Stampe Frøsig, Anne Vingaard Olesen

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Relative to their application with adults there is currently little information about the application of preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments among populations of young people. The Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) is a paediatric-specific generic preference-based HRQL instrument, recently translated and linguistically validated into Danish (CHU9D-DK). The purpose of this study was to investigate the construct validity of the CHU9D-DK in a sample of Danish high school students.

Methods

All students attending a Danish High School were invited to participate in a web-based survey in January 2018 (N = 272). The survey included the CHU9D-DK, the young adult version of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ 4.0 Generic Core Scales (PedsQL), self-reported health status, presence/absence of disability/chronic diseases, life satisfaction, and socio-economic questions. CHU9D-DK utility scores were generated by employing the two scoring algorithms developed from adults in the UK and adolescents in Australia, respectively. Internal consistency, reliability and construct validity of the CHU9D-DK instrument were investigated.

Results

Two hundred and twenty-eight (84%) students consented to participate and completed the survey. The mean ± (standard deviation) values of the CHU9D-DK utilities were 0.84 (0.11) when the UK adult algorithm was applied and 0.70 (0.22), when the Australian adolescent algorithm was applied. The mean PedsQL score was 82.32 (13.14). The CHU9D-DK showed good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.803). Higher levels of health status and life satisfaction were significantly associated with higher CHU9D-DK utility scores regardless of which scoring algorithm was applied (p-values < 0.001). Students living with a disability/chronic disease exhibited significantly lower utility scores relative to their healthy peers (p-values < 0.05). Higher socio-economic status (approximated by financial situation and frequency of family vacations) was also associated with higher utility scores (p-values < 0.005).

Conclusion

The CHU9D-DK demonstrated good psychometric performance overall and shows potential as a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the HRQL of Danish young people.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03391999, Registered 15 October 2017.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Biro F, Dorn L. Puberty and its measurement. A decade in review [review]. J Res Adolesc. 2011;21:180–95.CrossRef
2.
Williams PG, Holmbeck GN, Greenley RN. Adolescent health psychology. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002;70:828–42.CrossRef
3.
Larson R, Wilson S. Adolescence across place and time: globalization and the changing pathways to adulthood. In R. Lerner and L. Steinberg. Handbook of adolescent psychology. New York: Wiley; 2004.CrossRef
4.
Kleinert S. Adolescent health: an opportunity not to be missed. Lancet. 2007;369:1788–9.
5.
Alberga AS, Sigal RJ, Goldfield G, et al. Overweight and obese teenagers: why is adolescence a critical period? Pediatr Obes. 2012;7:261–73.CrossRef
6.
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Saloman J, et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.CrossRef
7.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care Programmes. Fourth. York: Oxford University Press; 2015.
8.
9.
Stevens K. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:1105–13.CrossRef
10.
Stevens KJ. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based, generic, pediatric, health-related quality-of-life measure. Qual Health Res. 2010;20:340–51.CrossRef
11.
Stevens K. 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. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9:157–69.CrossRef
12.
Yang P, Chen G, Wang P, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the child health utility 9D (CHU9D-CHN): a school-based study in China. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1921–31.CrossRef
13.
Stevens K, Ratcliffe J. 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 Health. 2012;15:1092–9.CrossRef
14.
Chen G, Flynn T, Stevens K, et al. Assessing the health-related quality of life of Australian adolescents: an empirical comparison of the Child Health Utility 9D and EQ-5D-Y instruments. Value Health. 2015;18:432–8.CrossRef
15.
ICON, by Anderson H, Vasile C. The translation and linguistic validation of the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) from English into Danish. Dublin: 2016.
16.
Chen G, Ratcliffe J. A review of the development and application of generic multi-attribute utility instruments for Paediatric populations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:1013–28.CrossRef
17.
Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics. 2005;115:e600–14.CrossRef
18.
19.
Ottosen MH, Andersen D, Dahl KM, et al. BØRN OG UNGE I DANMARK: VELFÆRD OG TRIVSEL. Eng. translation: CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS IN DENMARK; WELFARE AND WELL-BEING. Copenhagen: The Danish Center for Social Science Research, Danish Translation: VIDEN Til VELFÆRD (VIVE): 2018.
20.
Boyce W, Torsheim T, Currie C, et al. Family affluence scale as a measure of national wealth: validation of an adolescent self-report measure. Soc Indic Res. 2006;78:473–87.CrossRef
21.
Benjaminsen L, Birkelund JF, Enemark MH, et al. Fattigdom og afsavn: om materielle og sociale afsavn blandt økonomisk fattige og ikke-fattige. Eng. translation: Poverty and deprivation: on material and social deprivation among economically poor and non-poor. Copenhagen: The Danish Center for Social Science Research, Danish Translation: VIDEN Til VELFÆRD (VIVE): 2016.
22.
Ratcliffe J, Stevens K, Flynn T, et al. Whose values in health? An empirical comparison of the application of adolescent and adult values for the CHU-9D and AQOL-6D in the Australian adolescent general population. Value Health. 2012;15:730–6.CrossRef
23.
Ratcliffe R, Chen G, Stevens K, et al. Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with young adults: insights from a time trade off study. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13:485–92.CrossRef
24.
Stevens K. Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:729–47.CrossRef
25.
Ratcliffe J, Huynh E, Chen G, et al. Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm. Soc Sci Med. 2016;157:48–59.CrossRef
26.
Ratcliffe J, Couzner L, Flynn T, et al. Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: a feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9:15–27.CrossRef
27.
Varni JW, Seid M, Kurtin PS. PedsQL™ 4.0: reliability and validity of the pediatric quality of life inventory™ version 4.0 generic Core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care. 2001;39:800–12.CrossRef
28.
Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Seid M, et al. The PedsQLTM 4.0 as a pediatric population health measure: feasibility, reliability, and validity. Ambul Pediatr. 2003;3:329–41.CrossRef
29.
Soee ABL, Skov L, Skovgaard LT, et al. Headache in children: effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment in a tertiary paediatric headache clinic. Cephalalgia. 2013;33:1218–28.CrossRef
30.
Mollerup PM, Nielsen TRH, Bøjsøe C, et al. Quality of life improves in children and adolescents during a community-based overweight and obesity treatment. Qual Life Res. 2017;26:1597–608.CrossRef
31.
Brandhøj M, Højgaard B. Indsatser til børn og unge med overvægt. En afdækning af effektmål, erfaringer med tværsektorielt samarbejde samt beskrivelse af lovende indsatser. Copenhagen, The Danish Center for Social Science Research, Danish Translation: VIDEN Til VELFÆRD (VIVE): 2016.
32.
Walters SJ. Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health­care evaluation: a practical guide to analysis and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley; 2009.CrossRef
33.
Chronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.CrossRef
34.
Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the Intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33:613–9.CrossRef
35.
Von Rueden U, Gosch A, Rajmil L, et al. Socioeconomic determinants of health related quality of life in childhood and adolescence: results from a European study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:130–5.CrossRef
36.
Varni JW, Limbers CA, Burwinkle TM. Impaired health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with chronic conditions: A comparative analysis of 10 disease clusters and 33 disease categories/severities utilizing the PedsQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:43.
37.
Petersen K, Chen G, Mpundu-Kaambwa C, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life in adolescent populations. Patient. 2018;11:29–37.CrossRef
38.
Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom National Questionnaire Survey. BMJ 1998;316:736-741. Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire 2017;316:736–41.CrossRef
39.
Johansen H, Dammann B, Andresen IL, et al. Health-related quality of life for children with rare diagnoses, their parents’ satisfaction with life and the association between the two. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:1–7.CrossRef
40.
Petersen KD, Kronborg C, Gyrd-Hansen D, et al. Characteristics of patients receiving allergy vaccination: to which extent do socio-economic factors play a role? Eur J Pub Health. 2011;21:323–8.CrossRef
41.
Anderson TW, Finn JB. The new statistical analysis of data. New York: Springer, 1996.CrossRef
42.
Zhao Y, Li SP, Liu L, et al. Does the choice of tariff matter?: a comparison of EQ-5D-5L utility scores using Chinese, UK, and Japanese tariffs on patients with psoriasis vulgaris in central South China. Medicine. 2017;96:1–7.CrossRef
43.
Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, et al. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health. 2009;12:1194–200.CrossRef
44.
Viney R, Norman R, King MT, et al. Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health. 2011;14:928–36.CrossRef
45.
Oddershede L, Petersen KD. Adjustment of foreign EQ-5D-3L utilities can increase their transferability. Clin Outcomes Res. 2015;7:629–36.CrossRef
46.
Furber G, Segal L. The validity of the Child Health Utility instrument (CHU9D) as a routine outcome measure for use in child and adolescent mental health services. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:22.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The construct validity of the Child Health Utility 9D-DK instrument
Authors
Karin Dam Petersen
Julie Ratcliffe
Gang Chen
Dorthe Serles
Christine Stampe Frøsig
Anne Vingaard Olesen
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1256-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2019 Go to the issue

Review

Quality of life, symptoms, and sleep quality of elderly with end-stage renal disease receiving conservative management: a systematic review

Research

Quality of life 10 years after cardiac surgery in adults: a long-term follow-up study

Research

Public involvement in health outcomes research: lessons learnt from the development of the recovering quality of life (ReQoL) measures

Research

Health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance versus radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiotherapy, prostate brachytherapy and reference population: a cross-sectional study

Research

MCDA-based deliberation to value health states: lessons learned from a pilot study

Research

Cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian version of the swallowing quality of life questionnaire (SWAL-QOL)