Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Challenges in Health State Valuation in Paediatric Economic Evaluation

Are QALYs Contraindicated?

  • Current Opinion
  • Health State Valuation in Children
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the growth in the use of health economic evaluation to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions, the challenges in applying standard methods to child health have become apparent.Aunique limitation is the paucity of childspecific preference-based measures. A single, valid, preference-based measure of utility that can be used in children of all ages does not exist. Thus, the ability to derive a QALY for use in cost-utility analysis (CUA) is compromised. This paper presents and discusses existing and novel options for deriving utilities for paediatric health states for use in CUAs.

While a direct elicitation may be preferred, a child’s ability to complete a standard gamble or time trade-off task is hampered by cognitive and age limitations. The abstract notions contained in indirect instruments such as the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index may also pose challenges for young children. Novel approaches to overcome these challenges include the development of age-appropriate instruments such as the EQ-5D-Y, the development of new child-specific utility instruments such as the Child Health Utility-9D and the re-calibration of existing adult instruments to derive preference weights for health states from children themselves. For children aged <6 years, researchers have little choice but to use a proxy reporter such as parents. While parents may be reliable reporters for physical activity limitations and externally manifest symptoms, their ability to accurately report on subjective outcomes such as emotion is questionable. Catalogues of utility weights for a range of conditions are increasingly becoming available but retain many of the same limitations as valuing health states from children or from proxies.

Given the dynamic relationship in quality of life (QOL) between family members when a child is ill, it seems appropriate to consider a family perspective rather than an individual perspective in child health state valuation. In a collective approach, health state utilities derived from multiple family members may be combined mathematically. Alternatively, in a unitary approach, a single utility estimate may be determined to represent the familys perspective. This may include deriving utilities through parent-child dyad estimation or by using a household model that combines the utility weights of the patient and family members, incorporating reciprocal QOL effects.

While these various approaches to child health state valuation represent novel research developments, the measurement challenges and threats to validity persist. Given the importance of non-health benefits to child health, especially in the domains of education and public policy, it may be worthwhile to consider an approach that allows incorporation of externalities to produce a cost-benefit analysis. The use of discrete-choice methods to assess willingness to pay for novel child health interventions holds promise as a means to produce meaningful economic evidence.

Regardless of the approach taken, the highest degree of methodological rigour is essential. The increasing attention being paid by health economic researchers to the measurement challenges of paediatric health state valuation can only increase the value of child health economic evidence for decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published costutility studies in child health. Pediatrics 2005; 115 (5): 2004–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tilford JM. Cost-effectiveness analysis and emergency medical services for children: issues and applications. Ambul Pediatr 2002; 2 (4 Suppl.): 330–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ungar WJ. Paediatric health economic evaluations: a world view. Healthc Q 2006; 10 (1): 134–40, 42–5

    Google Scholar 

  4. Keren R, Pati S, Feudtner C. The generation gap: differences between children and adults pertinent to economic evaluations of health interventions. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (2): 71–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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: 3–32

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ungar WJ, Santos MT. The quality of pediatric health economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21 (2): 203–10

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Walker D, Fox-Rushby JA. Economic evaluation of communicable disease interventions in developing countries: a critical review of the published literature. Health Econ 2000; 9 (8): 681–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2006

  9. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008. Report no.: N1618

    Google Scholar 

  10. Prosser LA, Hammitt JK, Keren R. Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (9): 713–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  12. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. The health utilities index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003 Oct 16; 1: 54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Petrou S. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Econ 2003; 12 (8): 697–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Prosser LA. Current challenges and future research in measuring preferences for pediatric health outcomes. J Pediatr 2009 Jul; 155 (1): 7–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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, discretechoice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2011; 9 (1): 15–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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: 340–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sung L, Petrou S, Ungar WJ. Measurement of health utilities in children. In: Ungar WJ, editor. Economic evaluation in child health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  18. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 1953

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: 6Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  20. Torrance GW. Utility measurement in healthcare: the things I never got to. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (11): 1069–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cheung K, Oemar M, Oppe M, et al. User guide: basic information on how to use EQ-5D, version 3.0. EuroQol Group, 2010 April [online]. Available from URL: http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/User_Guide_v3_April_2010_.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 8]

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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): 887–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, et al. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 2010 Aug; 19 (6): 875–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Szilagyi PG, Schor EL. The health of children. Health Serv Res 1998; 33 (4): 1001–39

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Matza LS, Swensen AR, Flood EM, et al. Assessment of health-related quality of life in children: a review of conceptual, methodological, and regulatory issues. Value Health 2004 Jan-Feb; 7 (1): 79–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. De Civita M, Regier D, Alamgir AH, et al. Evaluating health-related quality-of-life studies in paediatric populations: some conceptual, methodological and developmental considerations and recent applications. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (7): 659–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Christakis DA, Johnston BD, Connell FA. Methodologic issues in pediatric outcomes research. Ambul Pediatr 2001; 1 (1): 59–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Stevens K. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Qual Health Res 2009; 18 (8): 1105–13

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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): 157–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stevens KJ. Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D). Sheffield: The University of Sheffield, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  31. Moodie M, Richardson J, Rankin B, et al. Predicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four Pacific countries using the Assessment of Quality-of-Life (AQoL-6D) instrument. Value Health 2010; 13 (8): 1014–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lewis PA, Charny M. Which of two individuals do you treat when only their ages are different and you can’t treat both? J Medical Ethics 1989; 15 (1): 28–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preferencebased instruments. Med Care 2003 Jul; 41 (7): 791–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Feeny D, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res 2004 Dec; 13 (10): 1659–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kopec JA, Willison KD. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003 Apr; 56 (4): 317–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D, et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 2004 Nov; 42 (11): 1125–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wee H-L, Machin D, Loke W-C, et al. Assessing differences in utility scores: a comparison of four widely used preferencebased instruments. Value Health 2007 Jul-Aug; 10 (4): 256–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Oostenbrink R, A Moll HA, Essink-Bot M-L. The EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index for permanent sequelae after meningitis: a head-to-head comparison. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55 (8): 791–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Smith-Olinde L, Grosse SD, Olinde F, et al. Health state preference scores for children with permanent childhood hearing loss: a comparative analysis of the QWB and HUI3. Qual Life Res 2008; 17 (6): 943–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Jacobson AM, Fried K. Conceptual issues in developing quality of life assessments for children: illustrations from studies of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. In: Drotar D, editor. Measuring health-related quality of life in children and adolescents. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1998: 131–50

    Google Scholar 

  41. Eiser C, Morse R. Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5 (4): 1–156

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Kashani JH, Orvaschel H, Burk JP, et al. Informant variance: the issue of parent-child disagreement. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry 1985; 24 (4): 437–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Kazdin AE, French NH, Unis AS, et al. Assessment of childhood depression: correspondence of child and parent ratings. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry 1983; 22 (2): 157–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Brunner HI, Maker D, Grundland B, et al. Preference-based measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in children with chronic musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs). Med Decis Making 2003 Jul-Aug; 23 (4): 314–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 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 (3): 569–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sung L, Young NL, Greenberg ML, et al. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores reported fromparents and their children with chronic illness differed depending on utility elicitation method. J Clin Epidemiol 2004 Nov; 57 (11): 1161–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Brouwer WBF, van Exel NJA, van Gorp B, et al. The CarerQol: a new instrument to measure care-related quality of life of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 1005–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, et al. Measuring quality of life in the parents of children with asthma. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 27–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Carroll AE, Downs SM. Improving decision analyses: parent preferences (utility values) for pediatric health outcomes. J Pediatr 2009 Jul; 155 (1): 21–5, 5 e1-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Petrou S, Kupek E. Estimating preference-based health utilities indexmark 3 utility scores for childhood conditions in England and Scotland. Med Decis Making 2009 May-Jun; 29 (3): 291–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Forrest CB, Riley AW, Vivier PM, et al. Predictors of children’s healthcare use: the value of child versus parental perspectives on healthcare needs. Med Care 2004; 42 (3): 232–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Landgraf JM, Abetz LN. Measuring health outcomes in pediatric populations: issues in psychometrics and application. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996: 793–802

    Google Scholar 

  53. Olson LM, Asmussen L. Current methods in measuring health-related quality of life in children with asthma. In: Weiss KB, Buist AS, Sullivan SD, editors. Asthma’s impact on society, the social and economic burden. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc, 2000: 99–126

    Google Scholar 

  54. Case A, Paxson C. Mothers and others: who invests in children’s health? J Health Econ 2000; 20: 301–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Chen AY, Escarce JJ. Family structure and the treatment of childhood asthma. Med Care 2008; 46 (2): 174–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Jacobson L. The family as producer of health: an extended Grossman model. J Health Econ 2000; 19: 611–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Anderson D, Dumont S, Jacobs P, et al. The personal costs of caring for a child with a disability: a review of the literature. Public Health Rep 2007; 122: 3–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Curtis LJ, Dooley MD, Lipman EL, et al. The role of permanent income and family structure in the determination of child health in Canada. Health Econ 2001; 10 (4): 287–302

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Dickie M, Gerking S. Valuing children’s health: parental perspectives. Economic valuation of environmental health risks to children. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2006: 121–58

    Google Scholar 

  60. Fu AZ. On the issue of utility multiplication: predicting joint health-states utility. ISPOR Connections 2009; 15 (5): 4–5

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ungar WJ, Mirabelli C, Cousins M, et al. A qualitative analysis of a dyad approach to health-related quality of life measurement in children with asthma. Soc Sci Med 2006 Nov; 63 (9): 2354–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ungar WJ, Boydell K, Dell S, et al. The validity and reliability of a parent-child dyad approach to utility and quality of-life assessment in children [abstract no. PM3]. Value Health 2008; 11 (3): A14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Davidson-Grimwood SR, Snelgrove D, Ungar WJ. The development of an interview guide for use in dyad childparent health related quality of life assessment. PRO Newsletter 2006; 37: 12–4

    Google Scholar 

  64. Basu A, Meltzer D. Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 2005; 24: 751–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Payakachat N, Tilford JM, Pyne JM, et al. Using generic measures to obtain health utility in child health: a case study evaluating health of children with autism spectrum disorders [abstract no. IP6]. International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 13th Annual European Congress; 2010 Nov 6–9; Prague

    Google Scholar 

  66. Prosser LA, Ray GT, O’Brien M, et al. Preferences and willingness to pay for health states prevented by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatrics 2004 Feb; 113 (2): 283–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Basu A, Dale W, Elstein A, et al. A time tradeoff method for eliciting partners quality of life due to patient’s health states in prostate cancer. Med Decis Making 2010; 30: 355–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Annett RD. Assessment of health status and quality of life outcomes for children with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 107: S473–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Krupnick AJ. Valuing health outcomes: policy choices and technical issues. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2004 Mar

    Google Scholar 

  70. Liu J-T, Hammitt JK, Wang J-D, et al. Mother’s willingness to pay for her own and her child’s health: a contingent valuation study in Taiwan. Health Econ 2000; 9: 31–326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Agee MD, Crocker TD. Transferring measures of adult health benefits to children: economic valuation of environmental health risks to children. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2006: 159–85

    Google Scholar 

  72. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005

    Book  Google Scholar 

  73. Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003

  74. Flynn TN. Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values: issues to consider. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (9): 711–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE gives evidence on the Health and Social Care Bill. 2011 Feb 11 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/features/NICEGivesEvidenceOnTheHealthAndSocialCareBill.jsp [Accessed 2011 Mar 9]

    Google Scholar 

  76. Wolfe I, Cass H, Thompson MJ, et al. Improving child health services in the UK: insights from Europe and their implications for the NHS reforms. BMJ. Epub 2011 Mar 8

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by in-kind support from the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute. In 2010, the author was a paid consultant to United Biosource Corporation on the topic of health state valuation in children. The author has no other potential conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Wendy J. Ungar

  2. Department of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Wendy J. Ungar

Authors
  1. Wendy J. Ungar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wendy J. Ungar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ungar, W.J. Challenges in Health State Valuation in Paediatric Economic Evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 29, 641–652 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11591570-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11591570-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation