Measuring preference-based quality of life in children aged 6–7 years: a comparison of the performance of the CHU-9D and EQ-5D-Y—the WAVES Pilot Study
- 835 Downloads
To examine the performance of the child health utility 9D (CHU-9D) and EuroQol 5D-youth (EQ-5D-Y) in children aged 6–7 years.
The CHU-9D and EQ-5D-Y were interviewer-administered to 160 children aged 6–7 years at six schools across the West Midlands. Missing values, time taken to complete instruments and interviewer ratings were recorded to assess feasibility/acceptability. Construct validity was assessed by testing convergent validity hypotheses. Reliability was examined via a test–retest of a sub-sample. Psychometric properties were further examined by exploring distributions of utility scores, qualitative notes and design of the questionnaires.
No missing responses were recorded with over 80% of children’s understanding being rated as good/excellent for both questionnaires. The average completion time for both instruments was less than 3 minutes, demonstrating excellent feasibility/acceptability. Evidence of construct validity was recorded with 12 of the 13 convergent hypotheses being supported. Test–retest reliability was relatively poor for both instruments with weighted kappa coefficients ranging from fair to moderate.
Children aged 6–7 years can feasibly complete utility instruments when interviewer-administered. The reliability of the instruments is of concern and requires further study. With respect to content validity and other psychometric properties, the CHU-9D is favoured to the EQ-5D-Y. Until the EuroQol group produces tariff values for the EQ-5D-Y, we recommend that the EQ-5D-Y is not used for utility elicitation in this age group.
KeywordsHRQoL QALY Child health EQ-5D-Y CHU-9D
Child health utility 9D
Generic preference-based measure
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Health-related quality of life
Paediatric quality of life inventory
West Midlands active lifestyle and healthy eating in schools
Time trade off
Short form 6D
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 06/85/11). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.
- 1.NICE (2004), Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Available online: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf.
- 2.NICE (2008), Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Available Online: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf.
- 3.Räsänen, P., Roine, E., Sinotenen, H., Semberg-Konttinen, V., Ryynänen, P., & Roine, R. (2006). Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22, 235–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Ravens-Sieberer, U., Gosch, A., Kilroe, J., et al. (2005). KIDSCREEN-52 quality-of-life measure for children and adolescents. Pharmacoeconomics, 5(3), 353–364.Google Scholar
- 14.Eieser, C., & Morse, R. (2001). Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood. Health Technology Assessment, 5(4), 1–156.Google Scholar
- 15.McGrath, P. (1990). Pain in children: Nature, assessment, and treatment. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- 18.Varni, J., Limbers, C., & Burwinkle, T. (2007). How young can children reliably and validly self-report their health-related quality of life?: An analysis of 8591 children across age subgroups with the PedsQL™4.0 Generic Core Scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(1), 1–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Stevens, K. (2010). Assessing the performance of a new generic measure of health related quality of life for children and refining it for use in health state valuation. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 8(3), 157–169.Google Scholar
- 22.Ratcliffe, J., Stevens, K., Sawyer, M., et al. (2011). An assessment of the construct validity of the CHU9D in the Australian adolescent general population. [Published online ahead of print Aug 12, 2011]. Quality of life research, http://www.springerlink.com/content/m63102v5n327p017/.
- 24.Thomas, K., Koller, K., Williams, H., et al. (2011). A multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of ion-exchange water softeners for the treatment of eczema in children: The Softened Water Eczema Trial (SWET). Health Technology Assessment, 15(8), 1–176.Google Scholar
- 25.Szende, A., Oppe, M., & Devlin, N. (2007). EQ-5D valuation sets: An inventory, comparative review and users’ guide. Rotterdam: EuroQol Foundation, Springer.Google Scholar
- 27.Stevens, K. (2010). Valuation of the child health utility index 9D (CHU-9D). Health Economics and Decision Science Discussion Paper 10/07.Google Scholar
- 28.Perreault, W. (1975). Controlling order-effect bias. Public Opinion Quarterly pp. 544–551.Google Scholar
- 29.Essink-Bot, M., Krabbe, P., & Bonsel, G. A. N. (1997). An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures: The Nottingham health profile, the medical outcomes study 36-item short-form health survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol Instrument. Medical Care, 35, 522–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.Google Scholar
- 38.Ratcliffe, J., Flynn, T., Terlich, F., Brazier, J., Stevens, K., & Sawyer, M. Developing adolescent specific health state values for economic evaluation: an application of profile case best worst scaling to the Child Health Utility-9D. Pharmacoeconomics, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
- 39.Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T., & Coast, J. (in press), Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: The ICECAP-A. Quality of Life Research. Google Scholar