Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 23, Issue 8, pp 777–790 | Cite as

Parent-proxy EQ-5D ratings of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in the US and the UK

  • Louis S. MatzaEmail author
  • Kristina Secnik
  • Sally Mannix
  • F. Randy Sallee
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: The symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are associated with impairment in multiple domains of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). HR-QOL of children with ADHD has been assessed by relatively long multidimensional questionnaires. A review of the literature found no studies using the brief, well established EuroQoL Five-Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D) to estimate the HR-QOL of children with ADHD. The objective of this study was to assess the HR-QOL of children with ADHD using parents’ responses to the proxy version of the EQ-5D.

Methods: Participants were recruited in the midwestern US and in the vicinity of London, England. All parents completed three questionnaires: the EQ-5D proxy version; a measure of ADHD symptoms based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Edition) [DSM-IV] criteria (the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-IV — Parent Version [ADHD-RS]); and either the Child Health Questionnaire — Parent Form 50 (CHQ-PF50) or the Child Health and Illness Profile — Child Edition (CHIP-CE), which are both generic multidimensional paediatric HR-QOL questionnaires.

Results: A total of 126 parents of children with ADHD participated in the study: 43 in the US and 83 in the UK. On the EQ-5D, participants indicated that 78.6% of their children experienced some problems or extreme problems performing usual activities, while 64.8% believed their child demonstrated some or extreme anxiety or depression. The mean EQ-5D index score was 0.75 and the mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score was 73.9. The EQ-5D index and VAS scores were found to be significantly correlated (p < 0.05) with several domains of the CHQ-PF50 (e.g. Mental Health, Self-Esteem, Family Activities, Psychosocial Summary Score) and the CHIP-CE (e.g. Satisfaction, Comfort, Academic Performance, Peer Relations). The EQ-5D scales were also significantly correlated with the ADHD-RS scales (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The proxy version of the EQ-5D, completed by parents, was able to detect impairment in children diagnosed with ADHD in the US and the UK. Furthermore, the EQ-5D index and VAS scores demonstrated construct validity among this sample through significant correlations with an ADHD symptom measure and previously validated multidimensional QOL instruments. These results suggest that parent-proxy EQ-5D ratings are feasible and valid for use as part of an overall health outcomes assessment in clinical studies of childhood ADHD.

Keywords

Visual Analogue Scale Visual Analogue Scale Score ADHD Symptom Child Health Questionnaire Proxy Version 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Christine Thompson for statistical programming and Jodi Shorr for production assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. We would also like to thank Dennis Revicki, Donald Gilbert, Michael Cannon, Jessica Brewster and Anne Rentz for assistance with data collection and study design.

Louis Matza and Kristina Secnik co-directed this project, sharing primary responsibility for study design, analysis/interpretation of data and drafting of the manuscript. Sally Mannix and F. Randy Sallee played integral roles in the design and implementation of data collection.

The Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ) is copyrighted © 1991, 1996, 1999 Landgraf and Ware. The CHQ is a health outcomes measure used across a variety of paediatric conditions and is not an ADHD-specific instrument.

Funding for this study was provided by Eli Lilly & Company.

References

  1. 1.
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Text Revision, ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 2000Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (ICD-10). 10th rev. ed., 1992Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown RT, Freeman WS, Perrin JM, et al. Prevalence and assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in primary care settings. Pediatrics 2001; 107 (3): E43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Esser G, Schmidt MH, Woerner W. Epidemiology and course of psychiatric disorders in school-age children: results of a longitudinal study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1990; 31 (2): 243–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graetz BW, Sawyer MG, Hazell PL, et al. Validity of DSM-IV ADHD subtypes in a nationally representative sample of Australian children and adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2001; 40 (12): 1410–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robison LM, Skaer TL, Sclar DA, et al. Is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder increasing among girls in the US? Trends in diagnosis and the prescribing of stimulants. CNS Drugs 2002; 16 (2): 129–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scahill L, Schwab-Stone M. Epidemiology of ADHD in schoolage children. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 2000; 9 (3): 541–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Szatmari P, Offord DR, Boyle MH. Ontario Child Health Study: prevalence of attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1989; 30 (2): 219–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leidy NK, Rich M, Geneste B. Recommendations for evaluation the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotion. Value Health 1999; 2 (2): 113–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patrick DL, Chiang YP. Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: conceptual and methodological challenges. Med Care 2000; 38 (9 Suppl.): II14–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matza LS, Rentz AM, Secnik K, et al. The link between healthrelated quality of life and clinical symptoms among children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2004; 25 (3): 166–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Michelson D, Faries D, Wernicke J, et al. Atomoxetine in the treatment of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-response study. Pediatrics 2001; 108 (5): E83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sawyer MG, Whaites L, Rey JM, et al. Health-related quality of life of children and adolescents with mental disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2002; 41 (5): 530–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16 (3): 199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lord J, Paisley S. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate for hyperactivity in childhood, Version 2. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2000Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brooks R. Introduction. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Badia X, Garcia-Hemandez G, Cobos N, et al. Validity of the Spanish version of the Pediatric Quality of Life Questionnaire for evaluating quality of life in asthmatic children. Med Clin (Bare) 2001; 116 (15): 565–72Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ekert H, Brewin T, Boey W, et al. Cost-utility analysis of recombinant factor VIIa (NovoSeven) in six children with long-standing inhibitors to factor VIII or IX. Haemophilia 2001; 7 (3): 279–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roset M, Badia X, Benavides A, et al. The validity of the EQ-5D in children with asthma. In: Badia X, Herdman M, Roset M, editors. Discussion Papers 16th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Barcelona: Institut de Salut Publica de Catalunya, 2000: 13–25Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stolk EA, Busschbach JJ, Vogels T. Performance of the EuroQol in children with imperforate anus. Qual Life Res 2000; 9 (1): 29–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vitale MG, Levy DE, Johnson MG, et al. Assessment of quality of life in adolescent patients with orthopaedic problems: are adult measures appropriate? J Pediatr Orthop 2001; 21 (5): 622–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lubetkin EI, Gold MR. Comprehensibility of measures of health-related quality of life in minority and low-income patients. J Nall Med Assoc 2002; 94 (5): 327–35Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krabbe P, Weijnen T. Guidelines for analysing and reporting EQ-5D outcomes. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    DuPaul GJ, Power TJ, Anastopoulos AD, et al. ADHD rating scale-IV: checklists, norms, and clinical interpretations. New York: Guilford Press, 1998Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kadesjo C, Kadesjo B, Hagglof B, et al. ADHD in Swedish 3- to 7-year-old children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2001; 40 (9): 1021–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Magnusson P, Smari J, Gretarsdottir H, et al. Attention-deficit/ hyperactivity symptoms in Icelandic schoolchildren: assessment with the attention deficit/hyperactivity rating scale-IV. Scand J Psychol 1999; 40 (4): 301–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Landgraf JM, Abetz L, Ware JE. The CHQ user’s manual. Boston (MA): HealthAct, 1999Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Landgraf JM, Maunsell E, Speechley KN, et al. CanadianFrench, German, and UK versions of the Child Health Questionnaire: methodology and preliminary item scaling results. Qual Life Res 1998; 7 (5): 433–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Waters E, Salmon L, Wake M. The Parent-Form Child Health Questionnaire in Australia: comparison of reliability, validity, structure, and norms. J Pediatr Psychol 2000; 25 (6: 381–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Waters E, Salmon L, Wake M, et al. The child health questionnaire in Australia: reliability, validity and population means. Aust N Z J Public Health 2000; 24 (2): 207–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Swensen AR, Rentz AM, Matza LS, et al. Health-related quality of life in the treatment of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, placebocontrolled, dose-response study. Oral Presentation at the DIA 9th Annual Symposium for Quality of Life Evaluation; 2002 Mar, Hilton Head (SC)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Riley AW, Forrest CB, Starfield B, et al. The parent report form of the CHIP-Child edition: reliability and validity. Med Care 2004; 42 (3): 210–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Poley MJ, Stolk EA, Langemeijer RA, et al. The cost-effectiveness of neonatal surgery and subsequent treatment for congenital anorectal malformations. J Pediatr Surg 2001; 36 (10): 1471–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Poley MJ, Stolk EA, Tibboel D, et al. The cost-effectiveness of treatment for congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Pediatr Surg 2002; 37 (9): 1245–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gafni A. The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res 1994; 29 (2): 207–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5 (1): 1–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5 (4): 559–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of healthrelated quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2 (6: 477–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Eiser C, Morse R. Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5 (4): 1–157PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Matza LS, Swensen AR, Flood EM, et al. Assessment of healthrelated quality of life in children: a review of conceptual, methodological, and regulatory issues. Value Health 2004; 7 (1): 79–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guidance on the use of methylphenidate (ritalin, equasym) for dttention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in childhood [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/Methylph-guidancel3.pdf [Accessed 2004 Jan 20]Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Klasen H, Goodman R. Parents and GPs at cross-purposes over hyperactivity: a qualitative study of possible barriers to treatment. Br J Gen Pract 2000; 50 (452): 199–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sayal K, Taylor E, Beecham J, et al. Pathways to care in children at risk of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 181: 43–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37 (1): 53–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis S. Matza
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kristina Secnik
    • 2
  • Sally Mannix
    • 1
  • F. Randy Sallee
    • 3
  1. 1.The MEDTAP Institute at United BioSource Corporation (UBC)BethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Eli Lilly & CompanyIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations