Preference Elicitation Techniques Used in Valuing Children’s Health-Related Quality-of-Life: A Systematic Review

Cate Bailey (), Martin Howell, Rakhee Raghunandan, Amber Salisbury, Gang Chen, Joanna Coast, Jonathan C. Craig, Nancy Devlin (), Elisabeth Huynh, Emily Lancsar, Brendan J. Mulhern, Richard Norman, Stavros Petrou, Julie Ratcliffe, Deborah J. Street, Kirsten Howard and Rosalie Viney
Additional contact information
Cate Bailey: University of Melbourne, Carlton
Martin Howell: University of Sydney
Rakhee Raghunandan: University of Sydney
Amber Salisbury: University of Sydney
Gang Chen: Monash University
Joanna Coast: University of Bristol
Jonathan C. Craig: Flinders University
Elisabeth Huynh: Australian National University
Brendan J. Mulhern: University of Technology Sydney
Richard Norman: Curtin University
Stavros Petrou: University of Oxford
Julie Ratcliffe: Flinders University
Deborah J. Street: University of Technology Sydney
Kirsten Howard: University of Sydney
Rosalie Viney: University of Technology Sydney

PharmacoEconomics, 2022, vol. 40, issue 7, No 3, 663-698

Abstract: Abstract Background and Objectives Valuing children’s health states for use in economic evaluations is globally relevant and is of particular relevance in jurisdictions where a cost-utility analysis is the preferred form of analysis for decision making. Despite this, the challenges with valuing child health mean that there are many remaining questions for debate about the approach to elicitation of values. The aim of this paper was to identify and describe the methods used to value children’s health states and the specific issues that arise in the use of these methods. Methods We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases to identify studies published in English since 1990 that used preference elicitation methods to value child and adolescent (under 18 years of age) health states. Eligibility criteria comprised valuation studies concerning both child-specific patient-reported outcome measures and child health states defined in other ways, and methodological studies of valuation approaches that may or may not have yielded a value set algorithm. Results A total of 77 eligible studies were identified from which data on country setting, aims, condition (general population or clinically specific), sample size, age of respondents, the perspective that participants were asked to adopt, source of values (respondents who completed the preference elicitation tasks) and methods questions asked were extracted. Extracted data were classified and evaluated using narrative synthesis methods. The studies were classified into three groups: (1) studies comparing elicitation methods (n = 30); (2) studies comparing perspectives (n = 23); and (3) studies where no comparisons were presented (n = 26); selected studies could fall into more than one group. Overall, the studies varied considerably both in methods used and in reporting. The preference elicitation tasks included time trade-off, standard gamble, visual analogue scaling, rating/ranking, discrete choice experiments, best-worst scaling and willingness to pay elicited through a contingent valuation. Perspectives included adults’ considering the health states from their own perspective, adults taking the perspective of a child (own, other, hypothetical) and a child/adolescent taking their own or the perspective of another child. There was some evidence that children gave lower values for comparable health states than did adults that adopted their own perspective or adult/parents that adopted the perspective of children. Conclusions Differences in reporting limited the conclusions that can be formed about which methods are most suitable for eliciting preferences for children’s health and the influence of differing perspectives and values. Difficulties encountered in drawing conclusions from the data (such as lack of consensus and poor reporting making it difficult for users to choose and interpret available values) suggest that reporting guidelines are required to improve the consistency and quality of reporting of studies that value children’s health using preference-based techniques.

Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01149-3 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:7:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01149-3

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

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01149-3

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 ().