Age dependency of EQ-5D-Youth health states valuations on a visual analogue scale

Psychometric Performance Comparison of the Adapted versus Original Versions of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and -Y-5L in Proxy Respondents for 2- to 4-Year-Olds

INTRODUCTION

Few preference-weighted instruments are available to measure health-related quality of life in young children (2-4 years of age). The EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L were recently modified for this purpose.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to test the psychometric properties of these adapted versions for use with parent proxies of children aged 2-4 years and to compare their performance with the original versions. It was hypothesised that the adapted instrument wording would result in improved psychometric performance.

METHODS

Survey data of children aged 2-4 years were obtained from the Australian Paediatric Multi-Instrument Comparison study. Distributional and psychometric properties tested included feasibility, convergence, distribution of level scores, ceiling effects, known-group validity (Cohen's D effect sizes for prespecified groups defined by the presence/absence of special healthcare needs [SHCNs]), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs]), and responsiveness (standardised response mean [SRM] effect sizes for changes in health). Level sum scores were used to provide summary outcomes. Supplementary analysis using utility scores (from the Swedish EQ-5D-Y-3L value set) were conducted for the adapted and original EQ-5D-Y-3L, and no value sets were available for the EQ-5D-Y-5L.

RESULTS

A total of 842 parents of children aged 2-4 years completed the survey. All instruments were easy to complete. There was strong convergence between the adapted and original EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L. The adapted EQ-5D-Y-3L and adapted EQ-5D-Y-5L showed more responses in the severe levels of the five EQ-5D-Y dimensions, particularly in the usual activity and mobility dimensions (EQ-5D-Y-5L: mobility level 1: adapted n = 478 [83%], original n = 253 [94%]; mobility level 4/5: adapted n = 17 [2.9%], original n = 4 [1.5%)]). The difference in the distribution of responses was more evident in children with SHCNs. Assessment of known-group validity showed a greater effect size for the adapted EQ-5D-Y-3L and adapted EQ-5D-Y-5L compared with the original instruments (EQ-5D-Y-5L: adapted Cohen's D = 1.01, original Cohen's D = 0.83) between children with and without SHCNs. The adapted EQ-5D-Y-3L and adapted EQ-5D-Y-5L showed improved reliability at 4-week follow-up, with improved ICCs (EQ-5D-Y-5L: adapted ICC = 0.83, original ICC = 0.44). The responsiveness of all instruments moved in the hypothesised direction for better or worse health at follow-up. Probability of superiority analysis showed little/no differences between the adapted and original EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L. Supplementary psychometric analysis of the adapted and original EQ-5D-Y-3L using utilities showed comparable findings with analyses using level sum scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest improved psychometric performance of the adapted version of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in children aged 2-4 years compared with the original versions.

Understanding Canadian stakeholders' views on measuring and valuing health for children and adolescents: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Valuing child health is critical to assessing the value of healthcare interventions for children. However, there remain important methodological and normative issues. This qualitative study aimed to understand the views of Canadian stakeholders on these issues.

METHODS

Stakeholders from health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, pharmaceutical industry representatives, healthcare providers, and academic researchers/scholars were invited to attend an online interview. Semi-structured interviews were designed to focus on: (1) comparing the 3-level and 5-level versions of the EQ-5D-Y; (2) source of preferences for valuation (adults vs. children); (3) perspective of valuation tasks; and (4) methods for valuation (discrete choice experiment [DCE] and its variants versus time trade-off [TTO]). Participants were probed to consider HTA guidelines, cognitive capacity, and potential ethical concerns. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework analysis with the incidence density method was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Fifteen interviews were conducted between May and September 2022. 66.7% (N = 10) of participants had experience with economic evaluations, and 86.7% (N = 13) were parents. Eleven participants preferred the EQ-5D-Y-5L. 12 participants suggested that adolescents should be directly involved in child health valuation from their own perspective. The participants were split on the ethical concerns. Eight participants did not think that there was ethical concern. 11 participants preferred DCE to TTO. Among the DCE variants, 6 participants preferred the DCE with duration to the DCE with death.

CONCLUSIONS

Most Canadian stakeholders supported eliciting the preferences of adolescents directly from their own perspective for child health valuation. DCE was preferred if adolescents are directly involved.

Cost-Effectiveness of Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Using the Cambridge Hybrid Algorithm in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: Results from a Multicenter 6-Month Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithm versus usual care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

This multicenter, binational, parallel-controlled trial randomized 133 insulin pump using participants aged 6 to 18 years to either AID (n = 65) or usual care (n = 68) for 6 months. Both within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness were analyzed. Analysis focused on the treatment subgroup (n = 21) who received the much more reliable CamAPS FX hardware iteration and their contemporaneous control group (n = 24). Lifetime complications and costs were simulated via an updated Sheffield T1D policy model.

RESULTS

Within-trial, both groups had indistinguishable and statistically unchanged health-related quality of life, and statistically similar hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) event rates. Total health care utilization was higher in the treatment group. Both the overall treatment group and CamAPS FX subgroup exhibited improved HbA1C (-0.32%, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.04; P = .02, and -1.05%, 95% CI: -1.43 to -0.67; P < .001, respectively). Modeling projected increased expected lifespan of 5.36 years and discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 1.16 (U.K. tariffs) and 1.52 (U.S. tariffs) in the CamAPS FX subgroup. Estimated ICERs for the subgroup were £19 324/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$3917/QALY (United States). For subgroup patients already using continuous glucose monitors (CGM), ICERs were £10 096/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$33 616/QALY (United States). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis generated mean ICERs of £19 342/QALY (95% CI: £15 903/QALY to £22 929/QALY) (United Kingdom) and -$28 283/QALY (95% CI: -$59 607/QALY to $1858/QALY) (United States).

CONCLUSIONS

For children and adolescents with T1D on insulin pump therapy, AID using the Cambridge algorithm appears cost-effective below a £20 000/QALY threshold (United Kingdom) and cost saving (United States).

EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Germany

BACKGROUND

Demand is increasing for youth-specific preference-based health-related quality-of-life measures for inclusion in evaluations of healthcare interventions for children and adolescents. The EQ-5D-Youth (EQ-5D-Y) has the potential to become such a preference-based measure.

OBJECTIVE

This study applied the recently published EQ-5D-Y valuation protocol to develop a German EQ-5D-Y value set and explored the differences between values given to youth health by parents and non-parents.

METHODS

To elicit EQ-5D-Y health state preferences, a representative sample of 1030 adults of the general population completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) online survey, and 215 adults participated in face-to-face interviews applying composite time trade-off (cTTO). Respondents were asked to consider a 10-year-old child living in the health states. DCE data were modelled using a mixed logit model. To derive the value set, DCE latent scale values were anchored onto adjusted mean cTTO values using a linear mapping approach.

RESULTS

Adult respondents considered pain/discomfort and feeling worried/sad/unhappy as the two most important dimensions in terms of youth health. Adjusted mean cTTO values ranged from - 0.350 for health state 33333 to 0.970 for health state 21111. The EQ-5D-Y value set showed a logical order for all parameter estimates, and predicted values ranged from - 0.283 to 1. Differences in preferences by parental status were mainly observed for cTTO results, where mean values were larger for parents than for non-parents.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying the valuation protocol, a German EQ-5D-Y value set with internally consistent coefficients was developed. This enables the instrument to be used in economic evaluations of paediatric healthcare interventions.

Preference Elicitation Techniques Used in Valuing Children's Health-Related Quality-of-Life: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Valuing children's health states for use in economic evaluations is globally relevant and is of particular relevance in jurisdictions where a cost-utility analysis is the preferred form of analysis for decision making. Despite this, the challenges with valuing child health mean that there are many remaining questions for debate about the approach to elicitation of values. The aim of this paper was to identify and describe the methods used to value children's health states and the specific issues that arise in the use of these methods.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases to identify studies published in English since 1990 that used preference elicitation methods to value child and adolescent (under 18 years of age) health states. Eligibility criteria comprised valuation studies concerning both child-specific patient-reported outcome measures and child health states defined in other ways, and methodological studies of valuation approaches that may or may not have yielded a value set algorithm.

RESULTS

A total of 77 eligible studies were identified from which data on country setting, aims, condition (general population or clinically specific), sample size, age of respondents, the perspective that participants were asked to adopt, source of values (respondents who completed the preference elicitation tasks) and methods questions asked were extracted. Extracted data were classified and evaluated using narrative synthesis methods. The studies were classified into three groups: (1) studies comparing elicitation methods (n = 30); (2) studies comparing perspectives (n = 23); and (3) studies where no comparisons were presented (n = 26); selected studies could fall into more than one group. Overall, the studies varied considerably both in methods used and in reporting. The preference elicitation tasks included time trade-off, standard gamble, visual analogue scaling, rating/ranking, discrete choice experiments, best-worst scaling and willingness to pay elicited through a contingent valuation. Perspectives included adults' considering the health states from their own perspective, adults taking the perspective of a child (own, other, hypothetical) and a child/adolescent taking their own or the perspective of another child. There was some evidence that children gave lower values for comparable health states than did adults that adopted their own perspective or adult/parents that adopted the perspective of children.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in reporting limited the conclusions that can be formed about which methods are most suitable for eliciting preferences for children's health and the influence of differing perspectives and values. Difficulties encountered in drawing conclusions from the data (such as lack of consensus and poor reporting making it difficult for users to choose and interpret available values) suggest that reporting guidelines are required to improve the consistency and quality of reporting of studies that value children's health using preference-based techniques.