nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

22.03.2018 | Review

A review of preference-based measures for the assessment of quality of life in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy

verfasst von: Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa, Gang Chen, Elisabeth Huynh, Remo Russo, Julie Ratcliffe

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 7/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the psychometric properties and suitability for use within the context of cerebral palsy research in children and adolescents of generic preference-based outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods

Nine electronic databases were searched in this systematic review. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist were used to measure the psychometric properties of the PROMs. A meta-analysis was used to pool correlation coefficients for convergent validity using the Schmidt–Hunter method. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared statistic (I²).

Results

Four preference-based PROMs were identified from eight studies: Health Utilities Index—Mark 2 and 3 (HUI-2 and HUI-3, respectively), the Assessment Quality of Life-4 dimension (AQoL-4D) and the EuroQol-5 dimension 3 level (EQ-5D-3L). Only the HUI system was primarily developed for application with children/adolescents though health-state values for scoring the PROM were elicited from adults. The HUI-3 covered the most relevant constructs though it excludes important modules of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) such as activity limitations and participation restrictions. In terms of psychometric properties, evidence was presented for only five of COSMIN measurement properties: reliability (HUI3), measurement error (HUI-3), content validity (HUI-2 and HUI-3), Hypotheses testing (HUI-3 and AQoL-4D) and criterion validity (HUI-3). No papers reported on internal consistency, structural validity, cross-cultural validity or responsiveness of the preference-based measures in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy.

Conclusions

This review highlights the dearth in studies using preference-based PROMs to measure HRQOL associated with cerebral palsy in children and adolescents. The HUI-3 demonstrated the strongest psychometric properties, though it does not cover all dimensions relevant to this population.

Vorheriger Artikel Preference-based measures to obtain health state utility values for use in economic evaluations with child-based populations: a review and UK-based focus group assessment of patient and parent choices

Nächster Artikel Do country-specific preference weights matter in the choice of mapping algorithms? The case of mapping the Diabetes-39 onto eight country-specific EQ-5D-5L value sets

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NICE. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013.

Deshpande, P. R., Rajan, S., Sudeepthi, B. L., & Abdul Nazir, C. P. (2011). Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2(4), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.86879.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Dubois, D., Leidy, N. K., Marquis, P., Revicki, D., et al. (2003). Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: An ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) harmonization group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health, 6(5), 522–531. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.65309.x.CrossRefPubMed

Willke, R. J., Burke, L. B., & Erickson, P. (2004). Measuring treatment impact: A review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Controlled Clinical Trials, 25(6), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2004.09.003.CrossRefPubMed

Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salmon, J., A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. London: Oxford University Press.

Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 1–30.CrossRefPubMed

Drummond, M. F., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Neumann, P. J., Goldie, S. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2000). Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annual Review of Public Health, 21(1), 587–611. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.587.CrossRefPubMed

Brazier, J. E., Dixon, S., & Ratcliffe, J. (2009). The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis: A conflict of values? Pharmacoeconomics, 27(9), 705–712. https://doi.org/10.2165/11314840-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Harris, A. B. L. (2004). Getting value for money: “The Australian experience”. In M. –H. International (Ed.), Health care coverage determinations: An international comparative study. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

11.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2012). Appendix G: Methodology checklist: Economic evaluations (PMG6B).

12.

Oskoui, M., Coutinho, F., Dykeman, J., Jette, N., & Pringsheim, T. (2013). An update on the prevalence of cerebral palsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 55(6), 509–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12080.CrossRef

13.

Rosenbaum, P., Paneth, N., Leviton, A., Goldstein, M., Bax, M., Damiano, D., et al. (2007). A report: The definition and classification of cerebral palsy April 2006. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology Supplement, 109, 8–14.PubMed

14.

Davis, E., Waters, E., Mackinnon, A., Reddihough, D., Graham, H. K., Mehmet-Radji, O., et al. (2006). Paediatric quality of life instruments: A review of the impact of the conceptual framework on outcomes. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 48(4), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012162206000673.CrossRef

15.

Carlon, S., Shields, N., Yong, K., Gilmore, R., Sakzewski, L., & Boyd, R. (2010). A systematic review of the psychometric properties of quality of life measures for school aged children with cerebral palsy. BMC Pediatrics, 10, 81. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-10-81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Janssens, A., Rogers, M., Gumm, R., Jenkinson, C., Tennant, A., Logan, S., et al. (2016). Measurement properties of multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures in neurodisability: A systematic review of evaluation studies. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 58(5), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12982.CrossRef

17.

Harvey, A., Robin, J., Morris, M. E., Graham, H. K., & Baker, R. (2008). A systematic review of measures of activity limitation for children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50(3), 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.02027.x.CrossRef

18.

Morris, C., Kurinczuk, J. J., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2005). Child or family assessed measures of activity performance and participation for children with cerebral palsy: A structured review. Child: Care, Health and Development, 31(4), 397–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2005.00519.x.CrossRef

19.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Mulhern, B., Mukuria, C., Barkham, M., Knapp, M., Byford, S., Soeteman, D., et al. (2014). Using generic preference-based measures in mental health: Psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D. British Journal of Psychiatry, 205(3), 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.122283.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Xin, Y., & McIntosh, E. (2017). Assessment of the construct validity and responsiveness of preference-based quality of life measures in people with Parkinson’s: A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 26(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1428-x.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Finch, A. P., Brazier, J. E., & Mukuria, C. (2017). What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews. The European Journal of Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0902-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., Mulhern, B., Hernandez Alava, M., Mukuria, C., et al. (2014). Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: A systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technology Assessment, 18(9), 1–224. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18090.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Brazier, J. E., Rowen, D., Mavranezouli, I., Tsuchiya, A., Young, T., Yang, Y., et al. (2012). Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technology Assessment, 16(32), 1–114. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16320.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kuspinar, A., & Mayo, N. E. (2014). A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in multiple sclerosis. Pharmacoeconomics, 32(8), 759–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0167-5.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Gilson, K. M., Davis, E., Reddihough, D., Graham, K., & Waters, E. (2014). Quality of life in children with cerebral palsy: Implications for practice. Journal of Child Neurology, 29(8), 1134–1140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073814535502.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Findlay, B., Switzer, L., Narayanan, U., Chen, S., & Fehlings, D. (2016). Investigating the impact of pain, age, gross motor function classification system, and sex on health-related quality of life in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 58(3), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12936.CrossRef

28.

Chen, K. L., Tseng, M. H., Shieh, J. Y., Lu, L., & Huang, C. Y. (2014). Determinants of quality of life in children with cerebral palsy: A comprehensive biopsychosocial approach. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(2), 520–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.12.002.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Waters, E., Davis, E., Mackinnon, A., Boyd, R., Graham, H. K., Lo, K., S., et al (2007). Psychometric properties of the quality of life questionnaire for children with CP. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49(1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.0126a.x.CrossRef

30.

Narayanan, U. G., Fehlings, D., Weir, S., Knights, S., Kiran, S., & Campbell, K. (2006). Initial development and validation of the Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD). Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 48(10), 804–812. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012162206001745.CrossRef

31.

Varni, J. W., Seid, M., & Kurtin, P. S. (2001). PedsQL 4.0: Reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Medical Care, 39(8), 800–812.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Palisano, R., Rosenbaum, P., Walter, S., Russell, D., Wood, E., & Galuppi, B. (1997). Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 39(4), 214–223.CrossRef

33.

Mpundu-Kaambwa, C., Chen, G., Huynh, E., Russo, R., & Ratcliffe, J. (2017). Protocol for a systematic review of instruments for the assessment of quality of life and well-being in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. British Medical Journal Open, 7(9), e015924. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015924.CrossRef

34.

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine. 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 651–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.PubMed

38.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Internal Medicine, 33(5), 358–370.

40.

The EuroQol Group (1990). EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef

41.

Penner, M., Xie, W. Y., Binepal, N., Switzer, L., & Fehlings, D. (2013). Characteristics of pain in children and youth with cerebral palsy. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0224.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Livingston, M. H., & Rosenbaum, P. L. (2008). Adolescents with cerebral palsy: Stability in measurement of quality of life and health-related quality of life over 1 year. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50(9), 696–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03053.x.CrossRef

43.

Rosenbaum, P., Livingston, M. H., Palisano, R. J., Galuppi, B. E., & Russell, D. J. (2007). Quality of life and health-related quality of life of adolescents with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49(7), 516–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00516.x.CrossRef

44.

de Lissovoy, G., Matza, L. S., Green, H., Werner, M., & Edgar, T. (2007). Cost-effectiveness of intrathecal baclofen therapy for the treatment of severe spasticity associated with cerebral palsy. Journal of Child Neurology, 22(1), 49–59.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Christensen, R., Macintosh, A., Switzer, L., & Fehlings, D. (2016). Change in pain status in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13328.CrossRef

46.

Kennes, J., Rosenbaum, P., Hanna, S. E., Walter, S., Russell, D., Raina, P., et al. (2002). Health status of school-aged children with cerebral palsy: Information from a population-based sample. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 44(4), 240–247.CrossRef

47.

Young, N. L., Rochon, T. G., McCormick, A., Law, M., Wedge, J. H., & Fehlings, D. (2010). The health and quality of life outcomes among youth and young adults with cerebral palsy. The Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(1), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.08.152.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Hoving, M. A., Evers, S. M. A. A., Ament, A. J. H. A., Van Raak, E. P. M., & Vles, J. S. H. (2008). Intrathecal baclofen therapy in children with intractable spastic cerebral palsy: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50(6), 450–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.02059.x.CrossRef

49.

Petrou, S., & Kupek, E. (2009). Estimating preference-based health utilities index mark 3 utility scores for childhood conditions in England and Scotland. Medical Decision Making, 29(3), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x08327398.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Noyes, J., & Edwards, R. T. (2011). EQ-5D for the assessment of health-related quality of life and resource allocation in children: A systematic methodological review. Value in Health, 14(8), 1117–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.07.011.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Young, N. L., Sheridan, K., Burke, T. A., Mukherjee, S., & McCormick, A. (2013). Health outcomes among youths and adults with spina bifida. The Journal of Pediatrics, 162(5), 993–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.10.042.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. (2003). The Health Utilities Index (HUI): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Grootendorst, P. V., Feeny, D. H., & Furlong, W. (1997). Does it matter whom and how you ask? inter- and intra-rater agreement in the Ontario Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(2), 127–135.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Boyle, M. H., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., Torrance, G. W., & Hatcher, J. (1995). Reliability of the Health Utilities Index—Mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian General Social Survey Health Questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 4(3), 249–257.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Barr, R., Pai, M., Weitzman, S., Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Rosenbaum, P., et al. (1994). A multiattribute approach to health-status measurement and clinical management illustrated by an application to brain-tumors in childhood. International Journal of Oncology, 4(3), 639–648.PubMed

56.

Barr, R. D., Furlong, W., Dawson, S., Whitton, A. C., Strautmanis, I., Pai, M., et al. (1993). An assessment of global health status in survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in childhood. The American Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, 15(3), 284–290.PubMed

57.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Barr, R. D., Torrance, G. W., Rosenbaum, P., & Weitzman, S. (1992). A comprehensive multiattribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 10(6), 923–928. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1992.10.6.923.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Furlong, W. J. (1996). Health Utilities Index. In B. Spiker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials ((2nd ed., pp. 239–252). Philadelphia: Linppincott-Raven.

59.

Kopec, J. A., Schultz, S. E., Goel, V., & Ivan Williams, J. (2001). Can the health utilities index measure change? Medical Care, 39(6), 562–574.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Branna, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer.CrossRef

61.

StatsDirect Ltd. (2013). StatsDirect statistical software. Retrieved August 21, 2017, from http://www.statsdirect.com.

62.

Moodie, M., Richardson, J., Rankin, B., Iezzi, A., & Sinha, K. (2010). Predicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four Pacific countries using the Assessment of Quality-of-Life (AQoL-6D) instrument. Value Health, 13(8), 1014–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00780.x.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Wille, N., Badia, X., Bonsel, G., Burstrom, K., Cavrini, G., Devlin, N., et al. (2010). Development of the EQ-5D-Y: A child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 19(6), 875–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

65.

Apajasalo, M., Sintonen, H., Holmberg, C., Sinkkonen, J., Aalberg, V., Pihko, H., et al. (1996). Quality of life in early adolescence: A sixteen-dimensional health-related measure (16D). Quality of Life Research, 5(2), 205–211.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Apajasalo, M., Rautonen, J., Holmberg, C., Sinkkonen, J., Aalberg, V., Pihko, H., et al. (1996). Quality of life in pre-adolescence: A 17-dimensional health-related measure (17D). Quality of Life Research, 5(6), 532–538.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Stevens, K. (2009). Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1105–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9524-9.CrossRefPubMed

68.

Beusterien, K. M., Yeung, J. E., Pang, F., & Brazier, J. (2012). Development of the multi-attribute Adolescent Health Utility Measure (AHUM). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10, 102. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

69.

Kaplan, R. M., Sieber, W. J., & Ganiats, T. G. (1997). The quality of well-being scale: Comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psychology and Health, 12(6), 783–791.CrossRef

70.

Raphael, D., Brown, I., Renwick, R., & Rootman, I. (1996). Assessing the quality of life of persons with developmental disabilities: Description of a new model, measuring instruments, and initial findings. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0156655960430103.CrossRef

71.

Petrou, S. (2003). Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Economics, 12(8), 697–702. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.775.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Griebsch, I., Coast, J., & Brown, J. (2005). Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: A critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics, 115(5), e600-614. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-2127.CrossRef

73.

Moons, P. (2004). Why call it health-related quality of life when you mean perceived health status? European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 3(4), 275–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2004.09.004.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Leplege, A., & Hunt, S. (1997). The problem of quality of life in medicine. JAMA, 278(1), 47–50.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Karimi, M., & Brazier, J. (2016). Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: What is the difference? Pharmacoeconomics, 34(7), 645–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9.CrossRefPubMed

76.

Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001). The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33 (5), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002092.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999). The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: A psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 8(3), 209–224.CrossRefPubMed

78.

Chen, G., & Ratcliffe, J. (2015). A review of the development and application of generic multi-attribute utility instruments for paediatric populations. Pharmacoeconomics, 33(10), 1013–1028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0286-7.CrossRefPubMed

79.

Ratcliffe, J., Stevens, K., Flynn, T., Brazier, J., & Sawyer, M. G. (2012). Whose values in health? An empirical comparison of the application of adolescent and adult values for the CHU-9D and AQOL-6D in the Australian adolescent general population. Value in Health, 15(5), 730–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.005.CrossRefPubMed

80.

Ratcliffe, J., Couzner, L., Flynn, T., Sawyer, M., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., et al. (2011). Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 9(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.2165/11536960-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed

81.

Ratcliffe, J., Stevens, K., Flynn, T., Brazier, J., & Sawyer, M. (2012). An assessment of the construct validity of the CHU9D in the Australian adolescent general population. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 717–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9971-y.CrossRefPubMed

82.

Stevens, K., & Ratcliffe, J. (2012). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation in adolescence: An assessment of the practicality and validity of the child health utility 9D in the Australian adolescent population. Value Health, 15(8), 1092–1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.011.CrossRefPubMed

83.

Keren, R., Pati, S., & Feudtner, C. (2004). The generation gap: Differences between children and adults pertinent to economic evaluations of health interventions. Pharmacoeconomics, 22(2), 71–81.CrossRefPubMed

84.

White-Koning, M., Arnaud, C., Dickinson, H. O., Thyen, U., Beckung, E., Fauconnier, J., et al. (2007). Determinants of child-parent agreement in quality-of-life reports: A European study of children with cerebral palsy. Pediatrics, 120(4), e804–814. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-3272.CrossRefPubMed

85.

Eiser, C., & Morse, R. (2001). Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood. Health Technology Assessment, 5(4), 1–157.CrossRefPubMed

86.

National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (2010). A healthier future for all Australians—Final report June 2009.

87.

Wasserman, J., Aday, L. A., Begley, C. E., Ahn, C., & Lairson, D. R. (2005). Measuring health state preferences for hemophilia: Development of a disease-specific utility instrument. Haemophilia, 11(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2005.01054.x.CrossRefPubMed

88.

Saigal, S., Stoskopf, B. L., Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Burrows, E., Rosenbaum, P. L., et al. (1999). Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents. JAMA, 281(21), 1991–1997.CrossRefPubMed

89.

Norquist, G., McGuire, T. G., & Essock, S. M. (2008). Cost-effectiveness of depression treatment for adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(5), 549–552. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08020316.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: A review of preference-based measures for the assessment of quality of life in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy
verfasst von: Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa
Gang Chen
Elisabeth Huynh
Remo Russo
Julie Ratcliffe
Publikationsdatum: 22.03.2018
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 7/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1837-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2018

Preference-based measures to obtain health state utility values for use in economic evaluations with child-based populations: a review and UK-based focus group assessment of patient and parent choices

Scale development with small samples: a new application of longitudinal item response theory

Quality of life of patients with gastrointestinal cancers undergoing chemotherapy

Health state utility values of high prevalence mental disorders in Australia: results from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing

Validation of the PROMIS Sleep Disturbance and Sleep-Related Impairment item banks in Dutch adolescents

Coping mediates the relationship between sense of coherence and mental quality of life in patients with chronic illness: a cross-sectional study

Premium Partner