Advertisement

Using Animation to Self-Report Health: A Randomized Experiment with Children

  • Carla GuerrieroEmail author
  • Neus Abrines Jaume
  • Karla Diaz-Ordaz
  • Katherine Loraine Brown
  • Jo Wray
  • Joan Ashworth
  • Matt Abbiss
  • John Cairns
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

The Child Health Utility-9D (CHU-9D) is the only generic preference-based measure specifically developed to elicit health-related quality of life directly from children aged 7–11 years. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of animation on a touch screen device (tablet) is a better way of collecting health status information from children aged 4–14 years compared to a traditional paper questionnaire. The specific research questions were firstly, do young children (4–7 years) find an animated questionnaire easier to understand; secondly, independent of age, is completion of an animated questionnaire easier for sick children in hospital settings; and thirdly, do children’s preferences for the different formats of the questionnaire vary by the age of the child.

Methods

Using a balanced cross-over trial, we administered different formats of the CHU-9D to 221 healthy children in a school setting and 217 children with health problems in a hospital setting. The study tested five versions of the CHU-9D questionnaire: paper text, tablet text, tablet still image, paper image and tablet animation.

Results

Our results indicated that the majority of the children aged 4–7 years found the CHU-9D questions easy to answer independent of the format of the questionnaire administered. Amongst children aged 7–14 with health problems, the format of questionnaire influenced understanding. Children aged 7–11 years found the tablet image and animation formats easier compared to text questionnaires, while the oldest children in hospital found text-based questionnaires easier compared to image and animation.

Conclusion

Children in all three age groups preferred animation on a tablet to other methods of assessment. Our results highlight the potential for using an animated preference-based measure to assess the health of children as young as 4 years.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study described in this work would have not been possible without the attention and enthusiasm of the children and without the help of their teachers. The authors are very grateful to the directors of the schools participating in the project: Queensbridge Primary School and Reepham High School and the clinical team of Great Ormond Street Hospital who helped with the recruitment in the hospital setting.

Author Contributions

JC and CG conceived the idea for the study. All authors contributed to the design and planning of the study. CG and KD-O performed the statistical analyses. CG wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors have revised the manuscript critically. All authors have given their final approval of the version to be published, and are responsible for the overall content.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This work was supported by the Medical Research Council (Grant number MR/K00624X/1). The Medical Research Council played no role in the design or conduct of the study.

Conflict of interest

Guerriero, Abrines Jaume, Diaz-Ordaz, Brown, Wray, Ashworth, Abbiss and Cairns have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics approval

The study “Childspla” received the Ethical Approval of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Ethical Committee.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Updated guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2008. 29–49.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. http://publications.nice.org.uk/pmg9. Accessed 16 Mar 2017.
  3. 3.
    Massetti M, et al. A comparison of HAS & NICE guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in the context of their respective national health care systems and cultural environments. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2015;3:24966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eiser C, Morse R. Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(4):1–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stevens K. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1105–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wille N, et al. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):875–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ratcliffe J, et al. Nothing about us without us? A comparison of adolescent and adult health-state values for the child health utility-9D using profile case best-worst scaling. Health Econ. 2016;25(4):486–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kwon J, et al. Patterns, trends and methodological associations in the measurement and valuation of childhood health utilities. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(7):1705–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petrou S. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Econ. 2003;12(8):697–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mpundu-Kaambwa C, et al. Mapping CHU9D utility scores from the PedsQL(TM) 4.0 SF-15. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(4):453–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ravens-Sieberer U, et al. Generic health-related quality-of-life assessment in children and adolescents: methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(2006):1199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Apajasalo M, et al. Quality of life in pre-adolescence: a 17-dimensional health-related measure (17D). Qual Life Res. 1996;5(6):532–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Teunnissen NC. The proxy problem: child report versus parent report in health-related quality of life research. Qual Life Res. 1998;7(5):387–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Griebsch I, et al. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Paediatrics. 2005;115(5):e600–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stevens KJ. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference based generic paediatric health related quality of life measure, in Health Economics and Decision Science Discussion Paper 08/04. 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stevens K. The development of a preference based paediatric health related quality of life measure for use in economic evaluation. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; 2008.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stevens K. 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. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(3):157–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Green MJ, Myers KR. Graphic medicine: use of comics in medical education and patient care. BMJ. 2010;340:c863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shane HC, Albert PDJ. Electronic screen media for persons with autism spectrum disorders: results of a survey. J Autism Dev Disord. 2008;38:1499–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abrines Jaume N, et al. CHILDSPLA: a collaboration between children and researchers to design and animate health states. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41(6):1140–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Canaway AG, Frew EJ. 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. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:173–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0119-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Siegler RS. How children develop. 5th ed. New York: Worth Publishers; 2016.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37(5):360–3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK
  3. 3.Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  4. 4.Institute of Cardiovascular ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  5. 5.Animation, Royal College of ArtLondonUK

Personalised recommendations