How are Child-Specific Utility Instruments Used in Decision Making in Australia? A Review of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Public Summary Documents

Cate Bailey (), Kim Dalziel, Paula Cronin, Nancy Devlin () and Rosalie Viney ()
Additional contact information
Cate Bailey: University of Melbourne
Kim Dalziel: University of Melbourne
Paula Cronin: University of Technology Sydney

PharmacoEconomics, 2022, vol. 40, issue 2, No 3, 157-182

Abstract: Abstract Measuring and valuing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in children can be challenging but is an important component for providing decision makers with accurate information to fund new interventions, including medicines and vaccines for public subsidy. We review funding submissions of medicines made to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee contained in public summary documents to examine the use of child-specific HRQOL measures in decision making in Australia. A sample frame of medicines used by children was derived from four sources. Public summary documents relating to these medicines were searched in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee web resources for whether they related to children (aged under 18 years) and contained HRQOL information and/or cost-utility analyses. Data about the use of utilities in decision making were extracted and analysed. Of the 1889 public summary documents available, 62 public summary documents (29 medicines) contained information pertaining to children and utilities. Of these, four public summary documents included child-specific HRQOL measures, 16 included adult HRQOL measures, 11 included direct elicitation and the HRQOL source was not defined in 31 documents. Excluding documents using child-specific HRQOL measures, we considered that in 85% of medicines, decision making uncertainty might have been reduced by using child-specific HRQOL measures. Despite the growing literature on economic analysis in paediatric populations, the use of child-specific HRQOL measures in submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee was minimal. Submissions involved inconsistent approaches, use of adult measures and weights, and substantial gaps in evidence. We recommend the consistent use of child-specific measures to improve the evidence base for decisions about medicines for children in Australia.

Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01107-5 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01107-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01107-5

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().