Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Child health-related quality of life following neurocritical care for traumatic brain injury: an analysis of preference-weighted outcomes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neurocritical Care Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

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.

Objective

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.

Setting/Patients

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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 

  3. Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health 2000;21:587–611.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  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 

  5. Dijkers MP. Quality of life after traumatic brain injury: a review of research approaches and findings. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85(Suppl 2):S21–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Taylor A, Butt W, Rosenfeld J, Shann F, Ditchfield M, Lewis E, et al. A randomized trial of very early decompressive craniectomy in children with traumatic brain injury and sustained intracranial hypertension. Childs Nerv Syst 2001;17(3):154–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP. Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res 1982;30(6):1043–69.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kumar R, West C, Quirke C, et al. Do children with severe head injury benefit from intensive care? Child’s Nervous Syst 1991;7:299–304.

    Article  CAS  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.

  10. Ghajar J, Hariri R, Narayan R, Iacono L, Firlik K, Patterson R. Survey of critical care management of comatose, head-injured patients in the United States. Crit Care Med 1995;23(3):560–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tilford JM, Simpson PM, Yeh T, Lensing S, Aitken ME, Green J, et al. Variation in therapy and outcome for pediatric head trauma patients. Crit Care Med 2001;29(5):1056–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tilford JM, Aitken ME, Anand KJ, Green JW, Goodman AC, Parker JG, et al. Hospitalizations for critically ill children with traumatic brain injuries: a longitudinal analysis. Crit Care Med 2005;33(9):2074–81.

    Article  PubMed  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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fiser DH. Assessing the outcome of pediatric intensive care. J␣Pediatr 1992;121:68–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Robinson A, Spencer A. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ 2006; 15(4):393–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Patrick DL, Starks HE, Cain KC, Uhlmann RF, Pearlman RA. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making 1994;14(1):9–18.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brent RJ. Cost-benefit analysis, health care evaluations. Northhampton MA: Edward Elgar; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Thurman D, Guerrero J. Trends in hospitalization associated with traumatic brain injury. JAMA 1999;282(10):954–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Thakker J, Splaingard M, Zhu J, Babel K, Bresnahan J, Havens P. Survival and functional outcome of children requiring endotracheal intubation during therapy for severe traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med 1997;25(8):1396–401.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pyne JM, Sieber WJ, David K, Kaplan RM, Hyman RM, Keith WD. Use of the quality of well-being self-administered version (QWB-SA) in assessing health-related quality of life in depressed patients. J Affect Disord 2003;76(1–3):237–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Czyzewski DI, Mariotto MJ, Bartholomew LK, LeCompte SH, Sockrider MM. Measurement of quality of well being in a child and adolescent cystic fibrosis population. Med Care 1994;32(9):965–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM, Ganiats TG, Groessl EJ, Sieber WJ, Weisman MH. Validity of self-administered quality of well-being scale in musculoskeletal disease. Arthritis Rheum 2004;51(1):28–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Groessl EJ, Kaplan RM, Barrett-Connor E, Ganiats TG. Body mass index and quality of well-being in a community of older adults. Am J Prev Med 2004;26(2):126–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Groessl EJ, Kaplan RM, Cronan TA. Quality of well-being in older people with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003;49(1):23–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP, Wu AW, Mathews WC, Kozin F, Orenstein D. The Quality of Well-being Scale. Applications in AIDS, cystic fibrosis, and arthritis. Med Care 1989;27(3 Suppl):S27–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Heard C, Li V, Heard A. A useful tool for predicting outcome for the pediatric head trauma patient. Crit Care Med 2003;30(6):1403–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. O’Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, Severens JL, Dorian P, Brazier J. A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ 2003;12(11):975–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002;21(2):271–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Killingsworth JB, Tilford JM, Parker JG, Graham JJ, Dick RM, Aitken ME. National hospitalization impact of pediatric all-terrain vehicle injuries. Pediatr 2005;115(3):e316–21.

    Article  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tilford JM. Cost-effectiveness analysis and emergency medical services for children: issues and applications. Ambul Pediatr 2002;2(4 Suppl):330–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatr 2005;115(5):e600–14.

    Article  Google 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.

  38. Skinner JS, Staiger DO, Fisher ES. Is technological change in medicine always worth it? The case of acute myocardial infarction. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25(2):w34–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bulger EM, Nathens AB, Rivara FP, Moore M, MacKenzie EJ, Jurkovich GJ, et al. Management of severe head injury: institutional variations in care and effect on outcome. Crit Care Med 2002;30(8):1870–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Parsons SK, Barlow SE, Levy SL, Supran SE, Kaplan SH. Health-related quality of life in pediatric bone marrow transplant survivors: according to whom? Int J Cancer Suppl 1999;12:46–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Corrigan JD, Harrison-Felix C, Bogner J, Dijkers M, Terrill MS, Whiteneck G. Systematic bias in traumatic brain injury outcome studies because of loss to follow-up. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84(2):153–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. McCullagh S, Feinstein A. Outcome after mild traumatic brain injury: an examination of recruitment bias. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74(1):39–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. McCarthy ML, MacKenzie EJ, Durbin DR, Aitken ME, Jaffe KM, Paidas CN, et al. Health-related quality of life during the first year after traumatic brain injury. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006;160(3):252–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. McCarthy ML, MacKenzie EJ, Durbin DR, Aitken ME, Jaffe KM, Paidas CN, et al. The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory: an evaluation of its reliability and validity for children with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86(10):1901–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Slomine BS, McCarthy ML, Ding R, et al. Health care utilization and needs after pediatric traumatic brain injury. Pediatr 2006; 117(4):e663–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Aitken ME, Tilford JM, Barrett KW, Parker JG, Simpson P, Landgraf J, et al. Health status of children after admission for injury. Pediatr 2002;110(2 Pt 1):337–42.

    Article  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004;13(9):873–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hatoum HT, Brazier JE, Akhras KS. Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health 2004;7(5):602–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Tammy Binz and Melanie Sabik for excellent research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, AR, 72202-3591, USA

    John M. Tilford, Mary E. Aitken, Debra H. Fiser, Jeffrey B. Killingsworth & Jerril W. Green

  2. Department of Economics, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 48212, USA

    Allen C. Goodman

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    P. David Adelson

Authors
  1. John M. Tilford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary E. Aitken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allen C. Goodman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Debra H. Fiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeffrey B. Killingsworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jerril W. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P. David Adelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John M. Tilford.

Additional information

Supported by grant H34MC00105 by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Aitken’s research is also supported by Grant Number RR020146 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NCRR or NIH.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tilford, J.M., Aitken, M.E., Goodman, A.C. et al. Child health-related quality of life following neurocritical care for traumatic brain injury: an analysis of preference-weighted outcomes. Neurocrit Care 7, 64–75 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-007-0037-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-007-0037-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation