↓ Skip to main content

Preference-based measures to obtain health state utility values for use in economic evaluations with child-based populations: a review and UK-based focus group assessment of patient and parent choices

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Preference-based measures to obtain health state utility values for use in economic evaluations with child-based populations: a review and UK-based focus group assessment of patient and parent choices
Published in
Quality of Life Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11136-018-1831-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane L. Wolstenholme, Danielle Bargo, Kay Wang, Anthony Harnden, Ulla Räisänen, Lucy Abel

Abstract

No current guidance is available in the UK on the choice of preference-based measure (PBM) that should be used in obtaining health-related quality of life from children. The aim of this study is to review the current usage of PBMs for obtaining health state utility values in child and adolescent populations, and to obtain information on patient and parent-proxy respondent preferences in completing PBMs in the UK. A literature review was conducted to determine which instrument is most frequently used for child-based economic evaluations and whether child or proxy responses are used. Instruments were compared on dimensions, severity levels, elicitation and valuation methods, availability of value sets and validation studies, and the range of utility values generated. Additionally, a series of focus groups of parents and young people (11-20 years) were convened to determine patient and proxy preferences. Five PBMs suitable for child populations were identified, although only the Health Utilities Index 2 (HUI2) and Child Heath Utility 9D (CHU-9D) have UK value sets. 45 papers used PBMs in this population, but many used non-child-specific PBMs. Most respondents were parent proxies, even in adolescent populations. Reported missing data ranged from 0.5 to 49.3%. The focus groups reported their experiences with the EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D. Both the young persons' group and parent/proxy groups felt that the CHU-9D was more comprehensive but may be harder for a proxy to complete. Some younger children had difficulty understanding the CHU-9D questions, but the young persons' group nonetheless preferred responding directly. The use of PBMs in child populations is increasing, but many studies use PBMs that do not have appropriate value sets. Parent proxies are the most common respondents, but the focus group responses suggest it would be preferred, and may be more informative, for older children to self-report or for child-parent dyads to respond.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 19 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Psychology 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 20 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,156,370
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#264
of 2,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,604
of 332,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#9
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,916 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.