4.5 Article

Scoring the Child Health Utility 9D instrument: estimation of a Chinese child and adolescent-specific tariff

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 163-176

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-2032-z

关键词

Child Health Utility 9D; Quality-adjusted life years; Economic evaluation; Child; Adolescent; China

资金

  1. Nanjing Municipal Science and Technique Foundation [ZDX12019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo derive children and adolescents' preferences for health states defined by the Chinese version of Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D-CHN) instrument in China that can be used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for economic evaluation.MethodsA profile case best-worst scaling (BWS) and a time trade-off (TTO) method were combined to derive a Chinese-specific tariff for the CHU9D-CHN. The BWS survey recruited students from primary and high schools using a multi-stage random sampling method and was administered in a classroom setting, whilst the TTO survey adopted an interviewer-administrated conventional TTO task and was administered to a convenience sample of undergraduate students. A latent class modelling framework was adopted for analysing the BWS data.ResultsTwo independent surveys were conducted in Nanjing, China, including a valid sample of 902 students (mean age 13years) from the BWS survey and a valid sample of 38 students (mean age 18years) from the TTO survey. The poolability of the best and the worst responses was rejected and the optimal result based on the best responses only. The optimal model suggests the existence of two latent classes. The BWS estimates were further re-anchored onto the QALY scale using the TTO generated health state values via a mapping approach.ConclusionThis study provides further insights into the use of the BWS method to generate health state values with young people and highlights the potential different decision rules that young people may employ for determining best vs. worst choices in this context.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据