Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Jul;28(7):1705-1724.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02121-z. Epub 2019 Feb 19.

Patterns, trends and methodological associations in the measurement and valuation of childhood health utilities

Joseph Kwon  1 , Sung Wook Kim  2 , Wendy J Ungar  3   4 , Kate Tsiplova  3 , Jason Madan  2 , Stavros Petrou  5
Affiliations
Review

Patterns, trends and methodological associations in the measurement and valuation of childhood health utilities

Joseph Kwon et al. Qual Life Res. 2019 Jul.

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically assess patterns and temporal changes in the measurement and valuation of childhood health utilities and associations between methodological factors.

Methods: Studies reporting childhood health utilities using direct or indirect valuation methods, published by June 2017, were identified through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, EconLit, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PEDE. The following were explored: patterns in tariff application; linear trends in numbers of studies/samples and paediatric cost-utility analyses (CUAs) and associations between them; changes in proportions of studies/samples within characteristic-based categories over pre-specified periods; impact of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on primary UK research and associations between valuation method, age and methodological factors.

Results: 335 studies with 3974 samples covering all ICD-10 chapters, 23 valuation methods, 12 respondent types and 42 countries were identified by systematic review. 34.0% of samples using indirect methods compatible with childhood applied childhood-derived tariffs. There was no association between numbers of studies/samples and numbers of CUAs. Compared to 1990-2008, 2009-June 2017 saw a significant fall in the proportion of studies using case series; significant compositional changes across ICD-10 chapters and significantly higher sample proportions using childhood-specific and adult-specific indirect valuation methods, and based on pre-adolescents, self-assessment, self-administration and experienced health states. NICE guidance was weakly effective in promoting reference methods. Associations between valuation method, age and methodological factors were significant.

Conclusion: 1990-2017 witnessed significant changes in primary research on childhood health utilities. Health technology assessment agencies should note the equivocal effect of methodological guidance on primary research.

Keywords: Childhood health states; Cost–utility analysis; Economic evaluation; Health utility; PRISMA; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Mr Joseph Kwon, Dr Sungwook Kim, Dr Wendy J. Ungar, Ms Kate Tsiplova, Dr Jason Madan and Dr Stavros Petrou declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram. Note PRISMA: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. HRQoL Health-related quality of life. PEDE paediatric economic database evaluation
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Distribution of mean utility and VAS scores (n = 3573) by valuation method. Note VAS: visual analogue scale; TTO: time trade-off; SG: standard gamble; MAUI: multi-attribute utility instrument; NPB: utility mapped from non-preference-based instrument. b Distribution of median utility and VAS scores (n = 870) by valuation method. NoteVAS visual analogue scale, TTO time trade-off, SG standard gamble, MAUI multi-attribute utility instrument
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Number of studies and samples from 1990–June 2017 and CUAs in PEDE 1990–2016. Note Category 2017 denotes papers published up to 30th June 2017; PEDE: Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation; CUAs: cost–utility analyses; NICE: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
    1. NICE (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. - PubMed
    1. SMC (2017). Working with SMC—A guide for manufacturers.
    1. CADTH (2017). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada 4th Edition.
    1. PBAC (2015). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.5).