Xie S, Humphries B, Tse P, et al. CADTH health technology review: measuring and valuing health for children: a review of the evidence. Can J Health Technol. 2024. https://doi.org/10.51731/cjht.2024.975.
Google Scholar
Wolstenholme JL, Bargo D, Wang K, et al. 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. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1769–80.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 4th ed. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2017. https://www.cda-amc.ca/guidelines-economic-evaluation-health-technologies-canada-0. Accessed 4 Aug 2025.
Rowen D, Azzabi Zouraq I, Chevrou-Severac H, et al. International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:11–9.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kind P, Klose K, Gusi N, et al. Can adult weights be used to value child health states? Testing the influence of perspective in valuing EQ-5D-Y. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2519–39.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Kreimeier S, Oppe M, Ramos-Goñi JM, et al. Valuation of EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, youth version (EQ-5D-Y) and EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) health states: the impact of wording and perspective. Value Health. 2018;21(11):1291–8.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Mott DJ, Shah KK, Ramos-Goñi JM, et al. Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L health states using a discrete choice experiment: do adult and adolescent preferences differ? Med Decis Mak. 2021;41(5):584–96.
Google Scholar
Åström M, Krig S, Ryding S, et al. EQ-5D-Y-5L as a patient-reported outcome measure in psychiatric inpatient care for children and adolescents: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:164.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lipman SA, Reckers-Droog VT, Kreimeier S. Think of the children: a discussion of the rationale for and implications of the perspective used for EQ-5D-Y health state valuation. Value Health. 2021;24:976–82.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword. Accessed 4 Aug 2025.
Xie F, Xie S, Pullenayegum E, et al. Understanding Canadian stakeholders’ views on measuring and valuing health for children and adolescents: a qualitative study. Qual Life Res. 2024;33:1415–22.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Mott DJ, Shah KK, Ramos-Go JM, et al. Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L health states using a discrete choice experiment: do adult and adolescent preferences differ? Med Decis Mak. 2021;41:584–96.
Google Scholar
Ramos-Goni JM, Estevez-Carrillo A, Rivero-Arias O, et al. Does changing the age of a child to be considered in 3-level version of EQ-5D-Y discrete choice experiment-based valuation studies affect health preferences? Value Health. 2022;25:1196–204.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Rogers HJ, Marshman Z, Rodd H, et al. Discrete choice experiments or best-worst scaling? A qualitative study to determine the suitability of preference elicitation tasks in research with children and young people. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5:26.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Williams G, Kinchin I. The application of discrete choice experiments eliciting young peoples’ preferences for healthcare: a systematic literature review. Eur J Health Econ. 2023;24(6):987–98.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Xie S, Wu J, He X, Chen G, Brazier J. Do discrete choice experiments approaches perform better than time trade-off in eliciting health state utilities? Evidence from SF6Dv2 in China. Value Health. 2020;23:1391–9.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Brazier J, Rowen D, Yang Y, et al. Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13:575–87.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Rowen D, Brazier J, Van Hout B. A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35:328–40.
Google Scholar
Pan T, Ramos-Goni J, Roudijk B, et al. Testing the valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-5L in adults and adolescents: results from a five country study and implications for the descriptive system. Value Health (in press). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.016.
Kreimeier S, Åström M, Burström K, et al. EQ-5D-Y-5L: developing a revised EQ-5D-Y with increased response categories. Qual Life Res. 2019;28:1951–61.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-Y-5L user guide, 2024. https://euroqolorg/information-and-support/documentation/user-guides. Accessed 19 July 2025.
Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Stolk E, et al. International valuation protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38:653–63.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31:306–18.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, et al. Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34:773–86.
Google Scholar
Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Econ. 2014;23:729–42.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:287–98.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. Census of population, 2021. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm?MM=1. Accessed 19 July 2025.
Powell PA, Rowen D, Keetharuth A, et al. Understanding UK public views on normative decisions made to value health-related quality of life in children: a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2024;340: 116506.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Nazari JL, Pickard AS, Gu NY. Findings from a roundtable discussion with US stakeholders on valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-3L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022;40:139–46.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–72.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:883–902.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Stevens K. Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:729–47.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Powell PA, Rowen D, Rivero-Arias O, et al. Valuing child and adolescent health: a qualitative study on different perspectives and priorities taken by the adult general public. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19:222.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Devlin N, Pan T, Kreimeier S, et al. Valuing EQ-5D-Y: the current state of play. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2022;20:105.
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
De Silva A, van Heusden A, Lang Z, et al. How do health state values differ when respondents consider adults versus children living in those states? A systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2025;43:723–40.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lipman SA, Reckers-Droog VT, Karimi M, et al. Self vs. other, child vs. adult: an experimental comparison of valuation perspectives for valuation of EQ-5D-Y-3L health states. Eur J Health Econ. 2021;22:1507–18.
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Tilford JM, Payakachat N, Kovacs E, et al. Preference-based health-related quality-of-life outcomes in children with autism spectrum disorders: a comparison of generic instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:661–79.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, et al. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 2016;54:98–105.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Ratcliffe J, Huynh E, Stevens K, et al. Nothing about us without us? A comparison of adolescent and adult health-state values for the Child Health Utility-9D using profile case best-worst scaling. Health Econ. 2016;25:486–96.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Humphries B, Pullenayegum E, Ohinmaa A, et al. Exploring the feasibility of using discrete choice experiment (DCE) to elicit preferences among children and adolescents: protocol for a convergent parallel mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2025;15: e097598.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Retra JGA, Essers BAB, Joore MA, et al. Age dependency of EQ-5D-youth health states valuations on a visual analogue scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:386.
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Prosser LA, Payne K, Rusinak D, et al. Valuing health across the lifespan: health state preferences for seasonal influenza illnesses in patients of different ages. Value Health. 2011;14:135–43.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Mott DJ, Shah KK, Ramos-Goni JM, et al. Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L health states using a discrete choice experiment: do adult and adolescent preferences differ? Med Decis Mak. 2021;41:584–96.
Google Scholar
Ratcliffe J, Huynh E, Chen G, et al. Valuing the child health utility 9D: using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm. Soc Sci Med. 2016;157:48–59.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Ratcliffe J, Flynn T, Terlich F, et al. Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation: an application of profile case best-worst scaling to the Child Health Utility 9D. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:713–27.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Stevens KJ. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based, generic, pediatric, health-related quality-of-life measure. Qual Health Res. 2010;20:340–51.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Varni JW, Limbers CA, Burwinkle TM. Impaired health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with chronic conditions: a comparative analysis of 10 disease cluster
Comments (0)