Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 163–176 | Cite as

Scoring the Child Health Utility 9D instrument: estimation of a Chinese child and adolescent-specific tariff

  • Gang Chen
  • Fei XuEmail author
  • Elisabeth Huynh
  • Zhiyong Wang
  • Katherine Stevens
  • Julie Ratcliffe
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To derive children and adolescents’ preferences for health states defined by the Chinese version of Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D-CHN) instrument in China that can be used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for economic evaluation.

Methods

A profile case best–worst scaling (BWS) and a time trade-off (TTO) method were combined to derive a Chinese-specific tariff for the CHU9D-CHN. The BWS survey recruited students from primary and high schools using a multi-stage random sampling method and was administered in a classroom setting, whilst the TTO survey adopted an interviewer-administrated conventional TTO task and was administered to a convenience sample of undergraduate students. A latent class modelling framework was adopted for analysing the BWS data.

Results

Two independent surveys were conducted in Nanjing, China, including a valid sample of 902 students (mean age 13 years) from the BWS survey and a valid sample of 38 students (mean age 18 years) from the TTO survey. The poolability of the best and the worst responses was rejected and the optimal result based on the best responses only. The optimal model suggests the existence of two latent classes. The BWS estimates were further re-anchored onto the QALY scale using the TTO generated health state values via a mapping approach.

Conclusion

This study provides further insights into the use of the BWS method to generate health state values with young people and highlights the potential different decision rules that young people may employ for determining best vs. worst choices in this context.

Keywords

Child Health Utility 9D Quality-adjusted life years Economic evaluation Child Adolescent China 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The paper has benefited from participants at the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) 23rd Annual Conference. We are grateful to Chao Li, Qin Ye, Hairong Zhou, Zhenzhen Qin, Shenxiang Qi, Huafeng Yang, Xupeng Chen from Nanjing Municipal CDC for their assistants with data collection. Responsibility for any remaining errors lies solely with the authors.

Funding

The study was supported by the Nanjing Municipal Science and Technique Foundation (ZDX12019), China.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

KS is the developer of the CHU9D and took a small royalty in 2016 for a commercial licence. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the academic and ethical committee of Nanjing Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

All participants to both surveys provided written consent prior to participation.

References

  1. 1.
    The Lancet. (2016). The best science for achieving Healthy China 2030. Lancet, 388(10054), 1851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frisén, A. (2007). Measuring health-related quality of life in adolescence. Acta Paediatrica, 96(7), 963–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schwartzmann, L. (2009). Research and action: Toward good quality of life and equity in health. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 9(2), 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huang, Y., Zhong, X.-N., Li, Q.-Y., Xu, D., Zhang, X.-L., Feng, C., et al. (2015). Health-related quality of life of the rural-China left-behind children or adolescents and influential factors: A cross-sectional study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13(1), 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ji, Y., Chen, S., Li, K., Xiao, N., Yang, X., Zheng, S., & Xiao, X. (2011). Measuring health-related quality of life in children with cancer living in mainland China: Feasibility, reliability and validity of the Chinese Mandarin version of PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales and 3.0 Cancer Module. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9(1), 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang, X., Xiao, N., & Yan, J. (2011). The PedsQL in pediatric cerebral palsy: Reliability and validity of the Chinese version pediatric quality of life inventory 4.0 generic core scales and 3.0 cerebral palsy module. Quality of Life Research, 20(2), 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhou, Z., Fang, Y., Zhou, Z., Li, D., Wang, D., Li, Y., et al. (2017). Assessing income-related health inequality and horizontal inequity in China. Social Indicators Research, 132(1), 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, G., & Ratcliffe, J. (2015). A review of the development and application of generic multi-attribute utility instruments for paediatric populations. Pharmacoeconomics, 33(10), 1013–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stevens, K. (2009). Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health related quality of life for children. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1105–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stevens, K., & Ratcliffe, J. (2012). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation in adolescence: An assessment of the practicality and validity of the Child Health Utility 9D in the Australian adolescent population. Value in Health, 15(8), 1092–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ratcliffe, J., Stevens, K., Flynn, T., Brazier, J., & Sawyer, M. (2012). An assessment of the construct validity of the CHU9D in the Australian adolescent general population. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 717–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen, G., Flynn, T., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., Huynh, E., Sawyer, M., et al. (2015). Assessing the health-related quality of life of Australian adolescents: An empirical comparison of the Child Health Utility 9D and EQ-5D-Y instruments. Value in Health, 18(4), 432–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petersen, K. D., Chen, G., Mpundu-Kaambwa, C., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., & Ratcliffe, J. (2018). Measuring health related quality of life in adolescent populations: An empirical comparison of the CHU9D and the PedsQL™ 4.0 Short Form 15. The Patient, 11(1), 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xu, F., Chen, G., Stevens, K., Zhou, H., Qi, S., Wang, Z., et al. (2014). Measuring and valuing health-related quality of life among children and adolescents in Mainland China—A pilot study. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e89222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value in Health, 8(2), 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., & Carson, R. T. (2010). Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling, 3(3), 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCabe, C., Brazier, J., Gilks, P., Tsuchiya, A., Roberts, J., O’Hagan, A., & Stevens, K. (2006). Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. Journal of Health Economics, 25(3), 418–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flynn, T. N., Huynh, E., Peters, T. J., Al-Janabi, H., Clemens, S., Moody, A., & Coast, J. (2015). Scoring the ICECAP-A capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Economics, 24(3), 258–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coast, J., Huynh, E., Kinghorn, P., & Flynn, T. (2016). Complex valuation: Applying ideas from the complex intervention framework to valuation of a new measure for end-of-life care. Pharmacoeconomics, 34(5), 499–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., & Marley, A. A. J. (2015). Best-worst scaling: Theory, methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ratcliffe, J., Couzner, L., Flynn, T., Sawyer, M., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., & Burgess, L. (2011). Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: A feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 9(1), 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ratcliffe, J., Huynh, E., Chen, G., Stevens, K., Swait, J., Brazier, J., et al. (2016). Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm. Social Science & Medicine, 157, 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ratcliffe, J., Chen, G., Stevens, K., Bradley, S., Couzner, L., Brazier, J., et al. (2015). Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with young adults: Insights from a time trade off study. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 13(5), 485–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics, 5(2), 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Swait, J., & Louviere, J. (1993). The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(3), 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2016). Upgrade manual for latent GOLD 5.1. Belmont Massachusetts: Statistical Innovations Inc.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J. J., Peters, T. J., & Coast, J. (2010). Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Social Science & Medicine, 70(12), 1957–1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rowen, D., Brazier, J., & Van Hout, B. (2015). A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 328–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu, G. G., Wu, H., Li, M., Gao, C., & Luo, N. (2014). Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value in Health, 17(5), 597–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value in Health, 20(4), 662–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krucien, N., Watson, V., & Ryan, M. (2017). Is best-worst scaling suitable for health state valuation? A comparison with discrete choice experiments. Health Economics, 26(12), e1–e16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Canaway, A. G., & Frew, E. J. (2013). 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. Quality of Life Research, 22(1), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chen, G., Ratcliffe, J., Olds, T., Magarey, A., Jones, M., & Leslie, E. (2014). BMI, health behaviors, and quality of life in children and adolescents: A school-based study. Pediatrics, 133(4), e868–e874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Boyer, N. R. S., Miller, S., Connolly, P., & McIntosh, E. (2016). Paving the way for the use of the SDQ in economic evaluations of school-based population health interventions: An empirical analysis of the external validity of SDQ mapping algorithms to the CHU9D in an educational setting. Quality of Life Research, 25(4), 913–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ungar, W. J., Hadioonzadeh, A., Najafzadeh, M., Tsao, N. W., Dell, S., & Lynd, L. D. (2015). Parents and adolescents preferences for asthma control: A best-worst scaling choice experiment using an orthogonal main effects design. BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 15, 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Flynn, T. N. (2010). Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values. Pharmacoeconomics, 28(9), 711–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Viney, R., Norman, R., King, M. T., Cronin, P., Street, D. J., Knox, S., & Ratcliffe, J. (2011). Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value in Health, 14(6), 928–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stevens, K. (2012). Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics, 30(8), 729–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yang, P., Chen, G., Wang, P., Zhang, K., Deng, F., Yang, H., & Zhuang, G. (2018). Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D-CHN): A school-based study in China. Quality of Life Research, 27(7), 1921–1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42(9), 851–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business SchoolMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.Nanjing Municipal Center for Disease Control and PreventionNanjingChina
  3. 3.School of Public HealthNanjing Medical UniversityNanjingChina
  4. 4.Institute for ChoiceUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  5. 5.Health Economics and Decision Science, ScHARRUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations