Child health-related quality of life following neurocritical care for traumatic brain injury: an analysis of preference-weighted outcomes
Cost-effectiveness analysis relies on preference-weighted health outcome measures as they form the basis for quality adjusted life years. Studies of preference-weighted outcomes for children following traumatic brain injury are lacking.
This study seeks to describe the preference-weighted health outcomes of children following a traumatic brain injury at 3- and 6-months following pediatric intensive care unit (ICU) discharge.
Children aged 5–17 who required ICU admission and endotracheal intubation or mechanical ventilation.
Main Outcome Measures
The Quality of Well-being (QWB) score was used to describe preference-weighted outcomes. Clinical measures from the intensive care unit stay were used to estimate risk of mortality. Risk of mortality, Glasgow coma scores, patient length of stay in the intensive care unit, and parent-reported items from the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ) were used to test construct validity.
Subject data were obtained from nine pediatric intensive care units with consent procedures approved by representative institutional review boards. Medical records containing clinical information from the ICU stay were abstracted by the study coordinating center. Caregivers of children were contacted by telephone for follow-up interviews at 3- and 6-months following ICU discharge. All interviews were conducted by telephone with the primary caregiver of the injured child. Preference score statistics are presented overall and in relation to characteristics of the patient and their ICU admission.
A response rate of 59% was achieved for the 3-month interviews (N = 56) and 67% for the 6-month interviews (N = 65) for caregivers of children aged 5 years and above that consented to participate. Overall, QWB scores averaged 0.508 (95% CI: 0.454–0.562) at the 3-month interview and 0.582 (95% CI: 0.526–0.639) at the 6-month interview. For both interview periods, scores ranged from 0.093 to 1.0 on a 0–1 value scale, where 0 represents death and 1 represents perfect health. Specific acute and chronic health problems from the QWB scale were present more often in patients with higher injury severity. Mortality risk, ICU length of stay, Glasgow Coma Scales, and parental reported summary scores from the CHQ all correlated correctly with the QWB scores.
The findings support the use of the QWB score with parental report to measure preference-weighted health outcomes of children following a traumatic brain injury. Information from the study can be used in economic evaluations of interventions to prevent or treat traumatic brain injuries in children.
KeywordsUtility values Economic evaluation Outcome assessment Quality of life
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
We thank Tammy Binz and Melanie Sabik for excellent research assistance.
- 1.Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
- 2.Gold MR, Patrick DL, Hadorn DC, MS Kamlet, Torrance GW, Fryback DG, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 82–134.Google Scholar
- 4.Bell C, Chapman RC, Sandberg EA, Stone PW, Neumann PJ. An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference weights from published cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Mak 1999;19:519.Google Scholar
- 9.Ghajar J, Hariri R. Variability of neurotrauma care in hospitals. In: Narayan R, Wilberger J, Povlishock J, editors. Neurotrauma. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.; 1996.Google Scholar
- 13.Landgraf JM, Abetz L. Influences of sociodemographic characteristics on parental reports of children’s physical and psychosocial well-being: early experiences with the child health questionnaire. In: Dratar D, editor. Measuring health-related quality of life in children and adolescents. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 1998. p. 105–30.Google Scholar
- 14.Landgraf JM, Abetz L, Ware JE. The CHQ User’s Manual, 1996, 1st ed., editor. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1996.Google Scholar
- 15.Fiser D, Long N, Roberson P, Hefley G, Zolten K, Brodie-Fowler M. Relationship of Pediatric Overall Performance Category and Pediatric Cerebral performance Category scores at pediatric intensive care unit discharge with outcome measures collected at hospital dischare and 1- and 6-month follow-up assessments. Crit Care Med 2000;28(7):2616–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Brent RJ. Cost-benefit analysis, health care evaluations. Northhampton MA: Edward Elgar; 2003.Google Scholar
- 22.Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The general health policy model: an integrated approach. In: Spiker B. editor. Quality of life and pharmeaeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996. p. 309–22.Google Scholar
- 23.Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. A general health policy model: update and Applications. Health Ser Res 1988;23(2):203–35.Google Scholar
- 34.Adelson PD, Bratton SL, Carney NA, Chesnut RM, du Coudray␣HE, Goldstein B, et al. Guidelines for the acute medical␣management of severe traumatic brain injury in infants,␣children, and adolescents. Chapter 5. Indications for intracranial pressure monitoring in pediatric patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2003;4(3 Suppl):S19–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Tilford JM, Aitken ME, Goodman AC, Adelson PD. Is more aggressive treatment of pediatric traumatic brain injury worth it? American Association of Health Economists National Meeting. 2006.Google Scholar
- 47.Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, Shojania K, Offer R, Brazier JE, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005;60(7):1571–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.Smith-Olinde L, Grosse SD, Olinde F, Martin PF, Gartman S, Tilford JM. Health state preference scores for children with congenital hearing loss: A comparative analysis. 2006.Google Scholar