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

Health Economics (United Kingdom)

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 486-496

  Ratcliffe, Julie ^a   Huynh, Elisabeth ^b   Stevens, Katherine ^c   Brazier, John ^c   Sawyer, Michael ^d   Flynn, Terry ^e  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^e UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

adolescents; adults; best worst scaling; cost utility analyses; health state values

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; CHILD HEALTH UTILITY 9D; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; PREVENTIVE MEDICINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL STATUS; ADOLESCENT HEALTH; AGE; AGED; ALGORITHM; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH SURVEY; INTERNET; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT HEALTH; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; ALGORITHMS; CHILD; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84959477046     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.3165     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Al Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J,. 2011. Estimation of a preference-based carer experience scale. Medical Decision Making 21: 458-468.
2. 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.
3. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A,. 2007. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford: University Press.
4. Coast J, Flynn T, Natarajan L, et al., 2008. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Social Science and Medicine 67: 874-992.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W,. 2005. Applied Choice Analysis, A Primer: Cambridge University Press.
14. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J,. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
15. 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.
16. McFadden D,. 1973. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour. California: University of California at Berkley.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Norquist G, McGuire T, Essock S,. 2008. Cost effectiveness of depression treatment for adolescents American Journal of Psychiatry 165: 549-552.
20. Petrou S., 2003. Methodological issues raised by preference based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Economics 12: 697-702.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Resnick D, Catalano R, Sawyer S, et al., 2012. Seizing the opportunities of adolescent health. The Lancet 379: 1564-1567.
25. 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.
26. Sawyer S, Afifi R, Bearinger L, et al., 2012. Adolescence: a foundation for future health. The Lancet 379: 1630-1640.
27. Sloane N, (2007). A library of orthogonal arrays. Available at: http://neilsloane.com/oadir/.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Stevens K., 2012. Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index. PharmacoEconomics 30: 729-747.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Swait J,. 2006. Advanced choice models. In Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice, Chapter 9, Barbara. K, (ed.), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, October 2006.
35. Ungar W,. 2011. Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation: are QALYs contraindicated? PharmacoEconomics 29: 641-652.
36. 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.
37. Williams P, Holmbeck G, Greenley R,. 2002. Adolescent health psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 70: 828-842.