Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 1/2019

02-08-2018 | Review

A systematic review of utility values in children with cerebral palsy

Auteurs: Utsana Tonmukayakul, Long Khanh-Dao Le, Shalika Bohingamu Mudiyanselage, Lidia Engel, Jessica Bucholc, Brendan Mulhern, Rob Carter, Cathrine Mihalopoulos

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2019

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

Project aims include the following: (i) to identify reported utility values associated with CP in children aged ≤ 18 years; (ii) to explore utility value elicitation techniques in published studies; and (iii) to examine performance of the measures and/or elicitation approaches.

Methods

Peer-reviewed studies published prior to March 2017 were identified from six electronic databases. Construct validity, convergent validity, responsiveness, and reliability of instruments were assessed.

Results

Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Utility values of hypothetical general CP states obtained from a general population of parents ranged from 0.55 to 0.88 using time trade off (TTO) and 0.60–0.87 using standard gamble (SG) techniques. Utility values reported by clinicians of three hypothetical spastic quadriplegic CP states, using the Health Utility Index Mark 2 (HUI-2), ranged from 0.40 to 0.13. Other sources of utilities identified were based on both proxy and child ratings using Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) (values ranged from − 0.013 to 0.84 depending on the valuation source) and the Assessment of Quality of Life 4 Dimension instrument, with values ranging from 0.01 to 0.58. Construct validity of the HUI-3 varied from moderate to strong, whereas mixed results were found for convergent validity. Responsiveness and reliability were not reported.

Conclusion

There was substantial variation in reported utilities. Indirect techniques (i.e. via multi-attribute utility instruments) were more frequently used than direct techniques (e.g. TTO, SG). Further research is required to improve the robustness of utility valuation of health-related quality of life in children with CP for use in economic evaluation.
volgende artikel Effects of caregiver-involved interventions on the quality of life of children and adolescents with chronic conditions and their caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Rosenbaum, P., Paneth, N., Leviton, A., Goldstein, M., & Bax, M. (2007). A report: The definition and classification of cerebral Palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49(Suppl s2), 9.
2.
Novak, I., Hines, M., Goldsmith, S., & Barclay, R. (2012). Clinical prognostic messages from a systematic review on cerebral palsy. Pediatrics, 130(5), e1285–e1312.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Reid, S. M., McCutcheon, J., Reddihough, D. S., & Johnson, H. (2012). Prevalence and predictors of drooling in 7- to 14-year-old children with cerebral palsy: A population study. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 54(11), 1032–1036.CrossRef
4.
Australian Cerebral Palsy Register Group. (2017). Australian Cerebral Palsy Register Report 2016, Australian Cerebral Palsy Register.
5.
6.
Bourke-Taylor, H., Howie, L., & Law, M. (2011). Barriers to maternal workforce participation and relationship between paid work and health. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55, 511–520.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Access Economics Pty. (2008). The economic impact of cerebral Palsy in Australia in 2007. Cerebral Palsy Australia.
8.
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Solomon, J. A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
12.
Chen, G., & Ratcliffe, J. (2015). A review of the development and application of generic multi-attribute utility instruments for paediatric populations. Pharmacoeconomics, 33(10), 1013–1028.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Seiber, W. J., Groessl, E. J., David, K. M., & Ganiats, T. G., Kaplan, R. M. (2008). Quality of Well Being Self-Administered (QWB-SA) Scale user’s manual. Sandiego: Health services Research Center, University of California.
14.
Torrance, G., Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Barr, R., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34, 702–722.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., & Torrance, G. (2002). Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for Health utilities Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Apajasalo, M., Sintonen, H., holmberg, C., Sinkkonen, J., Aalberg, V., Pihko, H., et al. (1996). Quality of life in early adolescence; a sixteen-dimensional health-related measure (16D). Quality of Life Research, 5(2), 205–211.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Apajassalo, M., Rautonen, J., holmberg, C., Sinkkonen, J., Aalberg, V., Pihko, H., et al. (1996). Quality of life in pre-adolescence: A 17-dimensional ehalth-related measure (17D). Quality of Life Research, 5(6), 532–538.CrossRef
18.
Moodie, M., Richardson, J., Rankin, B., & Iezzi, A., Sinha, K. (2010). Prdicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four Pacific countries using the Assessment of Quality-of-Life (AQoL-6D) instrument. Value Health, 13(8), 1014–1027.CrossRefPubMed
19.
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.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Wille, N., Badia, X., Bonsel, G., et al. (2010). Development of the EQ-5D-Y: A child friendly version of the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 19(6), 875–886.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Beusterien, K., Yeung, J.-E., Pang, F., & Brazier, J. (2012). Development of the multi-attribute Adolescent Health Utility Measure (AHUM). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10, 102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Tosh, J., Brazier, J., Evans, P., & Longworth, L. (2012). A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 15, 118–127.CrossRef
23.
Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., Mulhern, B., Hernandez Alava, M., Mukuria, C., et al. (2014). Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: A systematic reveiw, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 18(9), 1–224
24.
Papaioannou, D., Brazier, J., & Parry, G. (2011). How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as the EQ-5D and SF-36, in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Value Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 14, 907–920.CrossRef
25.
Selai, C. E., Trimble, M. R., Price, M. J., & Remak, E. (2005). Evaluation of health status in epilepsy using the EQ-5D questionnaire: A prospective, observational, 6-month study of adjunctive therapy with anti-epileptic drugs. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 21(5), 733–739.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Neumann, P. J. (2005). Health utilities in Alzheimer’s disease and implications for cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics, 23(6), 537–541.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Ara, R., & Azzabi, Z. I. (2017). The role of condition-specific preference-based measures in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics, 35(Suppl 1), 33–41.CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
30.
Engel, L., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Doyle-Waters, M. M., & Whitehurst, D. G. (2016). Exclusion Criteria in National Health State valuation studies: A systematic review. Medical Decision Making, 36(7), 798–810.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Kennedy-Martin, T., Paczkowski, R., & Rayner, S. (2015). Utility values in diabetic kidney disease: A literature review. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 31(7), 1271–1282.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Liem, Y. S., Bosch, J. L., & Hunink, M. G. (2008). Preference-based quality of life of patients on renal replacement therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health, 11(4), 733–741.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Wyld, M., Morton, R. L., Hayen, A., Howard, K., & Webster, A. C. (2012). A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Medicine, 9(9), e1001307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Novak, I., McIntyre, S., Morgan, C., Campbell, L., Dark, L., Morton, N., Stumbles, E., Wilson, S. A., & Goldsmith, S. (2013). A systematic review of interventions for children with cerebral palsy: State of the evidence. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 55(10), 855–910.CrossRef
35.
Peasgood, T., & Brazier, J. (2015). Is meta-analysis for utility values appropriate given the potential impact different elicitation methods have on values? Pharmacoeconomics, 33(11), 1101–1105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (1999). A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics. Health economics, 8(1), 41–51.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioural sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
38.
Lissovoy, G. M., L. S.; Green, H.; Werner, M.; Edgar, T (2007). Cost-effectiveness of intrathecal baclofen therapy for the treatment of severe spasticity associated with cerebral palsy. Journal of Child Neurology, 22(1), 49–59.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Carroll, A. E., & Downs, S. M. (2009). Improving decision analyses: Parent preferences (utility values) for pediatric health outcomes. The Journal of Pediatrics, 155(1), 21.e1–25.e5.CrossRef
40.
Petrou, S., & Kupek, E. (2009). Estimating preference-based health utilities index mark 3 utility scores for childhood conditions in England and Scotland. Medical Decision Making, 29(3), 291–303.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Young, N. L., Rochon, T. G., McCormick, A., Law, M., Wedge, J. H., & Fehlings, D. (2010). The health and quality of life outcomes among youth and young adults with cerebral palsy. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(1), 143–148.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Rosenbaum, P. L., Livingston, M. H., Palisano, R. J., Galuppi, B. E., & Russell, D. J. (2007). Quality of life and health-related quality of life of adolescents with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49(7), 516–521.CrossRef
43.
Sport England. (2000). Disability Survey: Survey of young people with a disability and sport. London, UK: Sport England.
44.
Palisano, R. J., Rosenbaum, P., Bartlett, D., & Livingston, M. H. (2008). Content validity of the expanded and revised gross motor function classification system. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50(10), 744–750.CrossRef
45.
Palisano, R., Rosenbaum, P., Walter, S., Russel, D., Wood, E., & Galuppi, B. (1997). Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 39, 214–223.CrossRef
46.
Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999). The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: A psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 8(3), 209–224.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. (2003) The Health Utilities Index (HUI(®)): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1(1), 54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Hawthorne, G., & Richardson, J. (1997) The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument construction, initial validation and utility scaling. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation.
50.
Mihalopoulos, C., Chen, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Richardson, J. (2014). Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: Comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. British Journal of Psychiatry, 205(5), 390–397.CrossRef
51.
Renwick, R., Fudge Schormans, A., & Zekovic, B. (2003). Quality of life: A new conceptual framework for children with disabilities. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 10, 107–114.
52.
Varni, J. W., Limbers, C. A., & Burwinkle, T. M. (2007). How young can children reliably and validly self-report their health-related quality of life? An analysis of 8,591 children across age subgroups with the PedsQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(1), 1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Eiser, C. (1995). Choices in measuring quality of life in children with cancer: A comment. Psycho-Oncology, 4(2), 121–131.CrossRef
54.
Thorrington, D., & Eames, K. (2015). Measuring health utilities in children and adolescents: A systematic reveiw of the literature. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0135672.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Bray, N., Noyes, J., Harris, N., & Edwards, R. T. (2017). Measuring the health-related quality of life of children with impaired mobility: Examining correlation and agreement between children and parent proxies. BMC Research Notes, 10(1), 377.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Ungar, W. J. (2011). Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation: Are QALYs contraindicated? Pharmacoeconomics, 29(8), 641–652.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Petrou, S. (2003). Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Economics, 12(8), 697–702.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Ratcliffe, J., Huynh, E., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., Sawyer, M., & Flynn, T. (2015). Nothing about us without us? A compariosn of adolescent and adult health-state values for the child health utility-9D using profile case bast-worst scaling. Health Economics, 25(4), 486–496.CrossRefPubMed
59.
NICE. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE.
60.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. (2006). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies (3rd ed.). Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.
61.
Livingston, M. H., Rosenbaum, P. L., Russell, D. J., & Palisano, R. J. (2007). Quality of life among adolescents with cerebral palsy: What does the literature tell us? Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49(3), 225–231.CrossRef
62.
Whitehurst, D. G. T., Mittmann, N., Noonan, V. K., Dvorak, M. F., & Bryan, S. (2016). Health state descriptions, valuations and individuals’ capacity to walk: A comparative evaluation of preference-based instruments in the context of spinal cord injury. Quality of Life Research, 25(10), 2481–2496.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Griebsch, I., Coast, J., & Brown, J. (2005). Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: A critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics, 115(5), e600–e614.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Brazier, J. E., Rowen, D., Mavranezouli, I., Tsuchiya, A., Young, T., Yang, Y., et al. (2012). Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technology Assessment ((Winchester, England)), 16(32), 1–114. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3310/​hta16320.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
A systematic review of utility values in children with cerebral palsy
Auteurs
Utsana Tonmukayakul
Long Khanh-Dao Le
Shalika Bohingamu Mudiyanselage
Lidia Engel
Jessica Bucholc
Brendan Mulhern
Rob Carter
Cathrine Mihalopoulos
Publicatiedatum
02-08-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1955-8

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2019

Quality of Life Research 1/2019 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire among patients following open heart surgery for valve dysfunction

Brief Communication

Normative values for the distress thermometer (DT) and the emotion thermometers (ET), derived from a German general population sample

OriginalPaper

Primary dysmenorrhea with and without premenstrual syndrome: variation in quality of life over menstrual phases

OriginalPaper

The prognostic value of health-related quality of life in patients with Chagas heart disease

OriginalPaper

Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Subjective Vitality Scale: evidence from Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong

OriginalPaper

Mapping the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory to the Health Utility Index Mark III