Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 1105–1113 | Cite as

Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children

  • Katherine StevensEmail author
Article

Abstract

Objectives

The use of preference-based measures (PBMs) of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is increasing in health care resource allocation decisions. Whilst there are measures widely used for this purpose in adults, research in the paediatric field is more limited. This paper reports on how the descriptive system for a new paediatric generic PBM of HRQoL was developed from dimensions identified in previous research.

Methods

Existing scales from the paediatric literature were reviewed for suitability, and scales were also developed empirically, based on qualitative interview data from children, by taking adverbial phrases and confirming the ordinality by a ranking exercise with children. The resulting scales were applied to the dimensions from the previous research.

Results

No suitable scales were found in the paediatric literature, so the empirically derived scales were used resulting in seven different types. Children were successfully able to rank these to determine the ordinality, and these types were applied to the dimensions.

Conclusions

This work has empirically developed a descriptive system for the dimensions of HRQoL identified in previous research. Further research is needed to test the descriptive system on a paediatric population and reduce the number of dimensions to be amenable to health state valuation.

Keywords

Health care rationing Paediatrics Quality-adjusted life years Quality of life 

Abbreviations

PBM

Preference-based measure

HRQoL

Health-related quality of life

QALYs

Quality-adjusted life years

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded as part of an MRC Special Training Fellowship in Health Services and Health of the Public Research. Thanks go to The Children and Young People’s Directorate at Sheffield City Council, the staff of Firs Hill Community Primary School and Hunters Bar Junior School, to the parents who gave their consent, to the staff at the schools and to all the children who took part in the research.

References

  1. 1.
    NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence). (April 2004). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCabe, C. (May 2003). Estimating preference weights for a paediatric health state classification (HUI2) and a comparison of methods. Ph.D.Thesis. The University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stevens, K. J. (2008). Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference based generic paediatric health related quality of life measure. Health Economics and Decision Science Discussion Paper 08/04. Available from http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/discussion.html Accessed 14/08/2008.
  4. 4.
    Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Health Measurement Scales. (1995). A practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tennant, A., McKenna, S. P., & Hagell, P. (2004). Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value in Health, 7(Supplement 1), S22–S26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brazier, J. E., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kind, P., Brooks, R., & Rabin, R. (Eds.). (2005). EQ-5D concepts and methods, a developmental history. Chapter 3. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiser, C., & Morse, R. (2001). Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood. Health Technology Assessment, 5(4), 1–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Apajasalo, M., Sintonen, H., Holmberg, C., et al. (1996). Quality of life in early adolescence: A sixteen-dimensional health-related measure (16D). Quality of Life Research, 5, 205–211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Health Utilities Index. http://healthutilities.biz/ Accessed 14/07/2008.
  11. 11.
    Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Riley, A. W., Forrest, C. B., Rebok, G. W., et al. (2004). The child report form of the CHIP-child edition: reliability and validity. Medical Care, 42(3), 221–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matza, L. S., Swensen, A. R., Flood, E. M., et al. (2004). Assessment of health related quality of life in children: A review of conceptual, methodological, and regulatory issues. Value in Health, 7(1), 79–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brazier, J. E., Deverill, M., Green, C., et al. (1999). A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 3(9), 1–164.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keller, S. D., Ware, J. E., Gandek, B., et al. (1998). Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: Results from the IQOLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 933–944.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bland, M., & Peacock, J. (2001). Methods based on rank order. In statistical questions in evidence-based medicine. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Argyrous, G. (2006). Rank-order tests for two or more samples. In statistics for research with a guide to SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hinton, P. R. (1995). Statistics explained. A guide for social science students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    MAPI research trust. Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database. Available from: www.proqolid.org Accessed 13/04/2006.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)The University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations