title: Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation: are QALYs contraindicated?
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. A unique limitation is the paucity of child-specific 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 family's 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.
authors: Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. wendy.ungar@sickkids.ca
authors: Wendy J
authors: WJ
authors: Ungar
references: J Med Ethics. 1989 Mar;15(1):28-34
references: 2926784
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(9):711-22
references: 20568837
references: Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011 May 1;9(3):157-69
references: 21506622
references: Med Care. 2004 Mar;42(3):232-8
references: 15076822
references: Healthc Q. 2007;10(1):134-40, 142-5; discussion 145-6
references: 17326379
references: J Am Acad Child Psychiatry. 1985 Jul;24(4):437-41
references: 4019971
references: Health Econ. 2003 Aug;12(8):697-702
references: 12898666
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(9):713-26
references: 17803331
references: Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Oct 16;1:54
references: 14613568
references: Qual Life Res. 2010 Aug;19(6):875-86
references: 20405245
references: Qual Life Res. 2006 Aug;15(6):1005-21
references: 16900281
references: Qual Life Res. 2010 Aug;19(6):887-97
references: 20401552
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1069-78
references: 17067192
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Nov;57(11):1161-6
references: 15567632
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 Apr;56(4):317-25
references: 12767408
references: Qual Life Res. 2004 Dec;13(10):1659-70
references: 15651537
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Aug;55(8):791-9
references: 12384194
references: Qual Life Res. 2009 Oct;18(8):1105-13
references: 19693703
references: Med Decis Making. 2003 Jul-Aug;23(4):314-22
references: 12926581
references: Med Care. 2004 Nov;42(11):1125-31
references: 15586840
references: Qual Life Res. 1996 Feb;5(1):27-34
references: 8901364
references: BMJ. 2011 Mar 08;342:d1277
references: 21385800
references: Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(1):15-27
references: 21033766
references: Health Econ. 2000 Jun;9(4):319-26
references: 10862075
references: Qual Health Res. 2010 Mar;20(3):340-51
references: 20054040
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(7):659-85
references: 15987225
references: Pediatrics. 2004 Feb;113(2):283-90
references: 14754939
references: Ambul Pediatr. 2001 Jan-Feb;1(1):59-62
references: 11888373
references: Med Care. 2008 Feb;46(2):174-84
references: 18219246
references: J Pediatr. 2009 Jul;155(1):21-5, 25.e1-5
references: 19394030
references: J Health Econ. 2005 Jul;24(4):751-73
references: 15960995
references: Soc Sci Med. 2006 Nov;63(9):2354-66
references: 16887248
references: J Pediatr. 2009 Jul;155(1):7-9
references: 19559288
references: J Am Acad Child Psychiatry. 1983 Mar;22(2):157-64
references: 6841836
references: Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(4):1-157
references: 11262421
references: Health Serv Res. 1998 Oct;33(4 Pt 2):1001-39
references: 9776947
references: Value Health. 2004 Jan-Feb;7(1):79-92
references: 14720133
references: Med Care. 2003 Jul;41(7):791-801
references: 12835603
references: Pediatrics. 2005 May;115(5):e600-14
references: 15867026
references: Med Decis Making. 2009 May-Jun;29(3):291-303
references: 19264726
references: J Health Econ. 2000 Sep;19(5):611-37
references: 11184796
references: J Health Econ. 2001 May;20(3):301-28
references: 11373833
references: Value Health. 2007 Jul-Aug;10(4):256-65
references: 17645680
references: Med Decis Making. 2010 May-Jun;30(3):355-65
references: 20228288
references: Pediatrics. 2000 Mar;105(3 Pt 1):569-74
references: 10699111
references: Value Health. 2010 Dec;13(8):1014-27
references: 20825621
references: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005 Spring;21(2):203-10
references: 15921060
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(2):71-81
references: 14731049
references: Health Econ. 2000 Dec;9(8):681-98
references: 11137950
references: Public Health Rep. 2007 Jan-Feb;122(1):3-16
references: 17236603
references: Qual Life Res. 2008 Aug;17(6):943-53
references: 18484191
references: Ambul Pediatr. 2002 Jul-Aug;2(4 Suppl):330-6
references: 12135408
references: J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001 May;107(5 Suppl):S473-81
references: 11344377
references: Health Econ. 2001 Jun;10(4):287-302
references: 11400252