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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 8/2012

01-08-2012 | Original Research Article

Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index

Author: Dr Katherine Stevens

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 8/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background and 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 aged 7–11 years. The estimation of preference weights will allow the calculation of QALYs for use in paediatric economic evaluation.

Methods

Valuation interviews were undertaken with 300 members of the UK adult general population to obtain preference weights for a sample of the health states in the CHU9D descriptive system. Both standard gamble and ranking valuation methods were used. Regression modelling was undertaken to estimate models that could predict a value for every health state defined by the system. A range of models were tested and were 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 using the general-to-specific approach, by combining inconsistent levels and removing non-significant levels. The final preferred model was an ordinary least squares (OLS) model. All the coefficients in this model were significant, there were no inconsistencies and the model had the best predictive performance and a low mean absolute error.

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 healthcare 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.
Literature
1.
Brazier JE, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
2.
Ungar WJ, Gerber A. The uniqueness of child health and challenges to measuring costs and consequences. In: Ungar WJ, editor. Economic evaluation in child health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010: 3–33
3.
Torrance G, Feeny D, Furling W, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34: 702–22PubMedCrossRef
4.
Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, et al. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19(6): 887–97PubMedCrossRef
5.
Moodie M, Richardson J, Rankin B, et al. Predicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four pacific countries using the AQoL-6D instrument. Value Health 2010; 13: 1014–27PubMedCrossRef
6.
Stevens KJ. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res 2009; 18(8): 1105–13PubMedCrossRef
7.
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(3): 340–51PubMedCrossRef
8.
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(3): 157–69PubMedCrossRef
9.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
10.
Brazier JE, Deverill M, Harper R, et al. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3(9): i–iv, 1–164PubMed
11.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004 Apr
12.
Brazier JE, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21(2): 271–92PubMedCrossRef
13.
McCabe C, Stevens K, Roberts J, et al. Health state values for the HUI2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey. Health Econ 2005; 14(3): 231–44PubMedCrossRef
14.
Stevens KJ, Brazier JE, McKenna SP, et al. The development of a preference-based measure of health in children with atopic dermatitis. Br J Derm 2005; 153: 372–7CrossRef
15.
MVH Group, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. The measurement and valuation of health: first report on the main survey. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2004
16.
17.
18.
Patrick DL, Starks HE, Cain KC, et al. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 9–18PubMedCrossRef
19.
McCabe C, Brazier JE, Gilks P, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J Health Econ 2006; 25: 418–31PubMedCrossRef
20.
O’Brien BJ, Drummond MF. Statistical versus quantitative significance in the socioeconomic evaluation of medicines. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 5(5): 389–98PubMedCrossRef
21.
Ljung G, Box G. On a measure of lack of fit in time series models. Biometrika 1979; 66: 265–70CrossRef
22.
Brazier JE, Roberts JR. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004; 42(9): 851–9PubMedCrossRef
23.
Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1523–32PubMedCrossRef
24.
Lloyd A. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference estimation methods accurate? Health Econ 2003; 12: 393–402PubMedCrossRef
25.
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(1): 15–27PubMedCrossRef
26.
Ratcliffe J, Flynn T, Terlich F, et al. A pilot study to apply best worst scaling discrete choice experiment methods to obtain adolescent specific values for the Child Health Utility 9D [Flinders Centre for Clinical Change and Health Care Research working paper no. 2011/1]. Adelaide: Flinders University, 2011
27.
Petrou S. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Econ 2003; 12(8): 697–702PubMedCrossRef
28.
Ungar WJ. Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation: are QALYs contraindicated? Pharmacoeconomics 2011; 29(8): 641–52PubMedCrossRef
29.
Ratcliffe J, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A, et al. 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 Econ 2009; 18(11): 1261–76PubMedCrossRef
30.
Brazier J, Rowen D, Yang Y, et al. Comparison of health state utility values derived using TTO, rank and DCE data anchored on the full health-dead scale. Eur J Health Econ 2010; 11:215–25PubMedCrossRef
31.
Sung L, Young NL, Greenberg ML, et al. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores reported from parents and their children with chronic illness differed depending on utility elicitation method. J Clin Epidemiol 2004 Nov; 57(11): 1161–6PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index
Author
Dr Katherine Stevens
Publication date
01-08-2012
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 8/2012
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11599120-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 8/2012

PharmacoEconomics 8/2012 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Developing Adolescent-Specific Health State Values for Economic Evaluation

Current Opinion

Comparative Effectiveness and Child Health

Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of Guanfacine Extended Release as an Adjunctive Therapy to a Stimulant Compared with Stimulant Monotherapy for the Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents

Original Research Article

The Impact of Rotavirus Vaccination on Discounted Net Tax Revenue in Egypt

Commentary

Valuing Children’s Health

Review Article

Economic Evaluations of Childhood Influenza Vaccination