Measuring the benefits of growth hormone therapy in children: A role for preference-based approaches?

Archives of Disease in Childhood

Volumn 93, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 95-97

  Petrou, Stavros ^a   McIntosh, Emma ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE; RECOMBINANT PROTEIN;

BRAIN PSEUDOTUMOR; CHILD GROWTH; CHRONIC KIDNEY FAILURE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; GROWTH HORMONE DEFICIENCY; GYNECOMASTIA; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HORMONAL THERAPY; HUMAN; LOW BIRTH WEIGHT; NEVUS; PANCREATITIS; PRADER WILLI SYNDROME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK FACTOR; SHORT STATURE; SHORT SURVEY; SIDE EFFECT; SKIN PIGMENTATION; SMALL FOR DATE INFANT; SOCIAL WELFARE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TURNER SYNDROME; CHILD; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GROWTH DISORDER; NOTE; PATIENT SATISFACTION;

CHILD; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GROWTH DISORDERS; HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE; HUMANS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 38849142695     PISSN: 00039888     EISSN: 14682044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/adc.2007.129650     Document Type: Short Survey

References (31)

1. Vance ML, Mauras N. Growth hormone therapy in adults and children. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1206-16.
2. Ahmed SF, Blamires C, Smith WA. Facilitating and understanding the family's choice of injection devise for growth hormone therapy by using conjoint analysis. Arch Dis Child 2008;93:110-4.
3. Kapoor RR, Burke S, Sparrow S, et al. Monitoring of concordance in growth hormone therapy. Arch Dis Child 2008;93:147-8.
4. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
5. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, et al. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:1-164.
6. Pliskin JS. Towards better decision making in growth hormone therapy. Horm Res 1995;51:30-5.
7. Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res 1976;11:478-507.
8. EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Pol 1990;16:199-208.
9. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Multi-attribute preference functions: Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics 1995;7:503-20.
10. Apajasalo M, Sintonen C, Holmberg C, et al. Quality of life in early adolescence: a sixteen-dimensional health-related measure (16D). Qual Life Res 1996;5:205-11.
11. Apajasalo M, Rautonen J, Holmberg C, et al. Quality of life in pre-adolescence: a seventeen-dimensional health-related measure (17D). Qual Life Res 1996;5:532-8.
12. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002;21:271-92.
13. In: Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD, eds. Valuing environmental goods. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, 1986.
14. Hindmarsh PC, Brook CDG. Compliance with growth hormone treatment: is it a problem? Horm Res 1999;61:104-8.
15. O'Brien B, Viramontes JL. Willingness to pay: a valid and reliable measure of health state preference. Med Decis Making 1994;14:289-97.
16. Maas A, Stalpers L. Assessing utilities by means of conjoint measurement: an application in medical decision analysis. Med Decis Making 1992;12:288-97.
17. Manski CF. The structure of random utility models. Theor Decis 1977;8:254.
18. Freeman AM. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. 3rd edn. Washington: Resources for the Future, 1993.
19. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000;320:1530-3.
20. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in-vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:535-46.
21. Spoth R, Redmond C. Identifying program preferences through conjoint analysis: illustrative results from a parent sample. Am J Health Promot 1993;8:124-33.
22. Zimet GD, Mays RM, Sturm LA, et al. Parental attitudes about sexually transmitted infection vaccination for their adolescent children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:132-7.
23. Fidotti E. A history of growth hormone injection devices. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 2001;14:497-501.
24. Gidman W, Elliott R, Payne K, et al. A comparison of parents and paediatric anesthesiologists' preferences for attributes of child day case surgery: a discrete choice experiment. Paediatr Anaesth 2007;17:1043-52.
25. Petrou S. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Econ 2003;12:697-702.
26. Eiser C, Morse R. Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood. Health Technol Assess 2001;5:1-156.
27. Saigal S, Rosenbaum PL, Feeny D, et al. Parental perspectives of the health status and health-related quality of life of teen-aged children who were extremely low birth weight and term controls. Pediatrics 2000;105:569-74.
28. Miguel FS, Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. 'Irrational' stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. Health Econ 2005;14:307-22.
29. Wilson TA, Rose SR, Cohen P, et al. Update of guidelines for the use of growth hormone in children: the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrinology Society Drug and Therapeutics Committee. J Pediatr 2003;143:415-21.
30. Bryant J, Cave C, Mihaylova B, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of growth hormone in children: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2002;6:1-175.
31. Dowie J. 'Evidence-based', 'cost-effective' and 'preference-driven' medicine: decision analysis based medical decision making is the pre-requisite. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996;1:104-13.