Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 8/2012

01.10.2012

Characteristics and quality of pediatric cost-utility analyses

verfasst von: Seija K. Kromm, Jennifer Bethell, Ferne Kraglund, Sarah A. Edwards, Audrey Laporte, Peter C. Coyte, Wendy J. Ungar

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 8/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Measuring utility for cost-utility analysis (CUA) is challenging in children. The objectives were to characterize pediatric CUAs, appraise their quality, and identify determinants of higher quality.

Methods

Descriptive data were imported from the PEDE database for 305 pediatric CUAs published from 1997 to 2009, and quality was rated using the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ) in 213 studies. The impact on quality of publication year, journal type, and whether utility was measured was analyzed using multiple regression.

Results

CUAs increased over time and the largest proportion was from North America (38%). Children aged 1–12 years (39%) and preventative interventions (51%) were studied most frequently. Whereas a societal perspective was most common in papers published before 2007 (49%), a third-party payer perspective was subsequently most frequent (63%). Utility was measured prospectively in 8% of studies. Domains that demonstrated the poorest quality were Perspective, Costs and resource use, Outcomes, Analysis, Incremental analysis and Conflict of interest. Quality increased significantly over time for most domains and was greater in studies published in methods/health economic journals.

Conclusions

The quality of pediatric CUAs is increasing. Few studies ascertain utility prospectively, suggesting the need for better instruments for pediatric health state valuation and measurement.
Literatur
1.
2.
3.
Drummond, M., Sculpher, M., Torrance, G., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, B. J. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
Office of Health Economics, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Associations. Trends in economic evaluation. The Health Economic Evaluations Database (OHE HEED). (2004). London. OHE-IFPMA. OHE Briefing: England.
5.
Ungar, W. J., & Santos, M. T. (2004). Trends in pediatric health economic evaluation: 1980 to 1999. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 89, 26–29.PubMed
6.
Ungar, W. J., & Gerber, A. (2010). The uniqueness of child health and challenges to measuring costs and consequences. In W. J. Ungar (Ed.), Economic evaluation in child health (pp. 1–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
Sung, L., Petrou, S., & Ungar, W. J. (2010). Measurement of health utilities in children. In W. J. Ungar (Ed.), Economic evaluation in child health (pp. 77–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
Prosser, L. A., Hammitt, J. K., & Keren, R. (2007). Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics, 25, 697–702.CrossRef
9.
Prosser, L. A. (2009). Current challenges and future research in measuring preferences for pediatric health outcomes. Journal of Pediatrics, 155, 7–9.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Petrou, S. (2003). Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Economics, 12, 697–702.PubMedCrossRef
11.
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, e600–e614.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Tarride, J. E., Burke, N., Bischof, M., Hopkins, R. B., Goeree, L., Campbell, K., et al. (2010). A review of health utilities across conditions common in pediatric and adult populations. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 1–11.CrossRef
13.
The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol: A new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.CrossRef
14.
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, 205–211.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Ungar, W. J., Mirabelli, C., Cousins, M., & Boydell, K. M. (2006). A qualitative analysis of a dyad approach to health-related quality of life measurement in children with asthma. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 2354–2366.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Wang, Q., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., Torrance, G., & Barr, R. (2002). How robust is the health utilities index mark 2 utility function? Medical Decision Making, 22, 350–358.PubMed
17.
Keren, R., Pati, S., & Feudtner, C. (2004). The generation gap: Differences between children and adults pertinent to economic evaluations of health interventions. Pharmacoeconomics, 22, 71–81.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Matza, L., Swensen, A., Flood, E., Secnik, K., & Leidy, N. K. (2004). Assessment of health-related quality of life in children: A review of conceptual, methodological, and regulatory issues. Value in Health, 7, 79–92.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Eiser, C., & Morse, R. (2001). Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood. Health Technology Assessment, 5, 1–157.PubMed
20.
Saigal, S., Stoskopf, B. L., Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Burrows, E., Rosenbaum, P. L., et al. (1999). Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 1991–1997.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Dickie, M., & Gerking, S. (2006). Valuing children’s health: parental perspectives. In economic valuation of environmental health risks to children (pp. 121–158). Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
22.
Neumann, P. J., Greenberg, D., Olchanski, N. V., Stone, P. W., & Rosen, A. B. (2005). Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976–2001. Value in Health, 8, 3–9.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (1997). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
26.
Ungar, W. J., & Santos, M. T. (2003). The pediatric economic database evaluation (PEDE) project: Establishing a database to study trends in pediatric economic evaluation. Medical Care, 41, 1142–1152.PubMedCrossRef
27.
28.
Ungar, W. J., & Santos, M. T. (2003). The pediatric quality appraisal questionnaire: An instrument for evaluation of the pediatric health economics literature. Value in Health, 6, 584–594.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Ungar, W. J., & Santos, M. T. (2005). Quality appraisal of pediatric health economic evaluations. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 21, 203–210.PubMed
30.
Au, F., Prahardhi, S., & Shiell, A. (2008). Reliability of two instruments for critical assessment of economic evaluations. Value in Health, 11, 435–439.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Ladapo, J., Neumann, P., Keren, R., & Prosser, L. A. (2007). Valuing children’s health: A comparison of cost-utility analyses for adult and pediatric health interventions in the US. Pharmacoeconomics, 25, 817–828.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Eisenberg, D., & Freed, G. L. (2007). Reassessing how society prioritizes the health of young people. Health Affairs, 26(2), 345–354.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Brouwer, W. B. F., Niessen, L. W., Postma, M. J., & Rutten, F. F. (2005). Need for differential discounting of costs and health effects in cost effectiveness analyses. British Medical Journal, 331, 446–448.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Cairns, J. A. (2006). Discounting of children’s health: conceptual and practical difficulties. In economic valuation of environmental health risks to children (pp. 187–206). Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
35.
McGhan, W. F., Al, M., Doshi, J. A., Kamae, I., Marx, S. E., & Rindress, D. (2009). The ISPOR good practices for quality improvement of cost-effectiveness research task force report. Value in Health, 12(8), 1086–1099.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Neumann, P. J., Rosen, A. B., Greenberg, D., Olchanski, N. N., Pande, R., Chapman, R. H., et al. (2005). Can we better prioritize resources for cost-utility research? Medical Decision Making, 25, 429–436.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Carroll, A. E., & Downs, S. M. (2009). Improving decision analyses: parent preferences (utility values) for pediatric health outcomes. Journal of Pediatrics, 155, 21–25.PubMedCrossRef
38.
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, 291–303.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Varni, J., Burwinkle, T., & Lane, M. (2005). Health-related quality of life measurement in pediatric clinical practice: An appraisal and precept for future research and application. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 1–9.CrossRef
40.
Moodie, M., Richardson, J., Rankin, B., Iezzi, A., & Sinha, K. (2010). Predicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four Pacific countries using the assessment of quality-of-life (AQoL-6D) instrument. Value in Health, 13(8), 1014–1027.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Wille, N., Badia, X., Bonsel, G., Burström, K., Cavrini, G., Devlin, N., 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.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Stevens, K. J. (2010). Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based, generic, pediatric, health-related quality-of-life measure. Qualitative Health Research, 20(3), 340–351.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Characteristics and quality of pediatric cost-utility analyses
verfasst von
Seija K. Kromm
Jennifer Bethell
Ferne Kraglund
Sarah A. Edwards
Audrey Laporte
Peter C. Coyte
Wendy J. Ungar
Publikationsdatum
01.10.2012
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 8/2012
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0049-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2012

Quality of Life Research 8/2012 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

‘All the burden on all the carers’: exploring quality of life with family caregivers of Huntington’s disease patients

OriginalPaper

Evaluation of patients’ and physicians’ expectations and attributes of osteoarthritis treatment using Kano methodology

OriginalPaper

The Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life 19 (ADDQoL): feasibility, reliability and validity in a population-based sample of Australian adults

Brief Communication

Validation of the Dutch version of the VascuQol questionnaire and the Amsterdam linear disability score in patients with intermittent claudication

OriginalPaper

The importance of assessing for depression with HRQOL in treatment seeking obese youth and their caregivers

OriginalPaper

Association between adherence to physical activity guidelines and health-related quality of life among individuals with physician-diagnosed arthritis