Valuing Child Health Isn't Child's Play

Who should value children's health and how? An international Delphi study

Valuing child health necessitates normative methodological decisions on whose preferences should be elicited and who should be imagined as experiencing impaired health. Formal guidance is limited and expert consensus unclear. This study sought to establish the degree of consensus among expert stakeholders on normative issues of who to ask and who should be imagined when valuing child health (7-17 years) to inform UK health technology assessment. Sixty-two experts (n = 47 in Round 2) from 18 countries participated in a modified, two-round online Delphi survey (Round 1: May-June 2023; Round 2: September-October 2023). Participants were expert stakeholders in child health valuation, including academics (n = 38); industry/consultancy representatives (including the charity/not-for-profit sector; n = 13); and UK policy/government representatives (n = 11). The Delphi survey was modified between rounds and consisted of 9-point Likert, categorical, multiple-choice, and free-text questions on normative issues in valuing child health. Responses were analysed descriptively and thematically. An a priori criterion of ≥75% agreement was established for formal consensus, while areas approaching consensus (≥70% agreement) and without consensus were identified as a future research primer. Consensus was observed that older adolescents (aged 16-17 years) and adults (18+ years) should be asked to value child health states. There was consensus that the former should think about themselves when valuing the health states and the latter should imagine a child of some form (e.g., imagining themselves as a child or another hypothetical child). However, no consensus was evident on what form this should take. Several other methodological issues also reached consensus. These findings are largely consistent with recent views elicited qualitatively from members of the public and other stakeholders on normative issues in valuing child health. The results mean that, contrary to what has been done in previous child health valuation studies, efforts should be made to involve both older adolescents (16+ years) and adults in child health valuation.

The RETRIEVE Checklist for Studies Reporting the Elicitation of Stated Preferences for Child Health-Related Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Recent systematic reviews show varying methods for eliciting, modelling, and reporting preference-based values for child health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes, thus producing value sets with different characteristics. Reporting in many of the reviewed studies was found to be incomplete and inconsistent, making them difficult to assess. Checklists can help to improve standards of reporting; however, existing checklists do not address methodological issues for valuing child HRQoL. Existing checklists also focus on reporting methods and processes used in developing HRQoL values, with less focus on reporting of the values' key characteristics and properties. We aimed to develop a checklist for studies generating values for child HRQoL, including for disease-specific states and value sets for generic child HRQoL instruments.

DEVELOPMENT

A conceptual model provided a structure for grouping items into five modules. Potential items were sourced from an adult HRQoL checklist review, with additional items specific to children developed using recent reviews. Checklist items were reduced by eliminating duplication and overlap, then refined for relevance and clarity via an iterative process. Long and short checklist versions were produced for different user needs. The resulting long RETRIEVE contains 83 items, with modules for reporting methods (A-D) and characteristics of values (E), for researchers planning and reporting child health valuation studies. The short RETRIEVE contains 14 items for decision makers or researchers choosing value sets.

CONCLUSION

Applying the RETRIEVE checklists to relevant studies suggests feasibility. RETRIEVE has the potential to improve completeness in the reporting of preference-based values for child HRQOL outcomes and to improve assessment of preference-based value sets.

Assessment of health state utilities associated with adult and pediatric acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD)

INTRODUCTION

Acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD) type B is a rare genetic disorder leading to enlargement of the spleen and liver, pulmonary dysfunction, and other symptoms. Cost-utility analyses are often conducted to quantify the value of new treatments, and these analyses require health state utilities. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with varying levels of severity of adult and pediatric ASMD type B.

METHODS

Seven adult and seven child health state vignettes describing ASMD were developed based on published literature, clinical trial results, and interviews with clinicians, patients with ASMD, and parents of children with ASMD. The health states were valued in time trade-off interviews with adult general population respondents in the UK.

RESULTS

Interviews were completed with 202 participants (50.0% female; mean age = 41.3 years). The health state representing ASMD without impairment had the highest mean utility for both the adult and child health states (0.92/0.94), and severe ASMD had the lowest mean utility (0.33/0.45). Every child health state had a significantly greater utility than the corresponding adult health state. Differences between adult/child paired states ranged from 0.02 to 0.13. Subgroup analyses explored the impact of parenting status on valuation of child health states.

DISCUSSION

Greater severity of ASMD was associated with lower mean utility. Results have implications for valuation of pediatric health states. The resulting utilities may be useful in cost-utility modeling estimating the value of treatment for ASMD.

Using Age-Specific Values for Pediatric HRQoL in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Is There a Problem to Be Solved? If So, How?

Value sets for the EQ-5D-Y-3L published to date appear to have distinctive characteristics compared with value sets for corresponding adult instruments: in many cases, the value for the worst health state is higher and there are fewer values < 0. The aim of this paper is to consider how and why values for child and adult health differ; and what the implications of that are for the use of EQ-5D-Y-3L values in economic evaluations to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions. We posit four potential explanations for the differences in values: (a) The wording of severity labels may mean the worst problems on the EQ-5D-Y-3L are descriptively less severe than those on the EQ-5D-5L; (b) Adults may genuinely consider that children are less badly affected than adults by descriptively similar health issues. That is, for any given health problem, adult respondents in valuation studies consider children's overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on average to be higher than that for adults; (c) Values are being sought by eliciting adults' stated preferences for HRQoL in another person, rather than in themselves (regardless of whether the 'other person' concerned is a child); and (d) The need to elicit preferences for child HRQoL that are anchored at dead = 0 invokes special considerations regarding children's survival. Existing evidence does not rule out the possibility that (c) and (d) exert an upward bias in values. We consider the implications of that for the interpretation and use of values for pediatric HRQoL. Alternative methods for valuing children's HRQoL in a manner that is not 'age specific' are possible and may help to avoid issues of non-comparability. Use of these methods would place the onus on health technology assessment bodies to reflect any special considerations regarding child quality-adjusted life-year gains.

Economic Evaluation of Family-Focused Programs When Parents Have a Mental Health Problem: Methodological Considerations

OBJECTIVES

The nature of adverse effects of parental mental health problems and of the interventions to address them may require specific designs of economic evaluation studies. Nevertheless, methodological guidance is lacking. We aim to understand the broad spectrum of adverse effects from parental mental health problems in children and the economic consequences on an individual and societal level to navigate the design of economic evaluations in this field.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of empirical studies on children's adverse effects from parental mental illness. We clustered types of impact, identified individual and public cost consequences, and illustrated the results in an impact inventory.

RESULTS

We found a wide variety of short- and long-term (mental) health impacts, impacts on social functioning and socioeconomic implications for the children individually, and adverse effects on the societal level. Consequently, public costs can occur in various public sectors (eg, healthcare, education), and individuals may have to pay costs privately.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing evaluations in this field mostly follow standard methodological approaches (eg, cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life-years) and apply a short-time horizon. Our findings suggest applying a long-term time horizon (at least up to early adulthood), considering cost-consequence analysis and alternatives to health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life-years as outcome measures, and capturing the full range of possible public and private costs.

Improving Interpretation of Evidence Relating to Quality of Life in Health Technology Assessments of Rare Disease Treatments

Rare diseases are often severe, debilitating, life-limiting conditions, many of which occur in childhood. These complex conditions have a wide range of clinical manifestations that have a substantial impact on the lives of patients, carers and families and often produce heterogeneous clinical outcomes. Therefore, the evaluation of quality-of-life (QoL) impacts is important. In health technology assessment (HTA), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and/or health state utility values (HSUVs) are used to determine QoL impacts of new treatments, but their use in rare diseases is challenging due to small and heterogeneous populations and limited disease knowledge. This paper describes challenges associated with the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs)/HSUVs to evaluate QoL in HTA of rare disease treatments (RDTs) and identifies five recommendations to ensure appropriate interpretation of QoL impacts. These were derived from mixed methods research (literature reviews, appraisal document analyses, appraisal committee observations and interviews) examining the use of PROs/HSUVs in HTA of RDTs. They highlight that HTAs of RDTs must (1) understand the QoL impacts of the disease and of treatments; (2) critically assess PRO data, recognising the nuances in development and administration of PROMs/HSUVs, considering what is feasible and what matters most to the patient population; (3) recognise that lack of significant effect on a PRO does not imply no QoL benefit; (4) use different forms of evidence to understand QoL impacts, such as patient input; and (5) provide methodological guidance to capture QoL impacts on patients/carers.

Findings from a Roundtable Discussion with US Stakeholders on Valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-3L

OBJECTIVES

The International Valuation Protocol for the valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-3L provides baseline guidance, but country-specific context is also important. This study aimed to obtain US stakeholders' input on key considerations for youth valuation in the US.

METHODS

A total of 14 stakeholders representing various backgrounds were identified via the investigators' networks. A 2-h online meeting was held to discuss (1) the need for a US value set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L; (2) willingness to pay more for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains for children versus adults; (3) sampling strategies; (4) framing perspectives; and (5) other challenges. The session was recorded, transcribed, and summarized.

RESULTS

Several stakeholders supported paying more for QALY gains for children in recognition of their potential future contributions to society, as well as to avoid potential undervaluation and promote access to innovative treatments. Concerns regarding possible double counting, lack of data to showcase long-term benefits, and dangers of paying more for certain subgroups were also expressed. Most of the stakeholders felt that adolescents could relate to a 10-year-old's perspective better than adults and were capable of self-completing valuation tasks, and thus should be directly included in the valuation study. There were concerns that adults would be inconsistent in their views about a 10-year-old, partly depending on their status as a parent.

CONCLUSIONS

US stakeholders provided insights relevant to youth valuation in a US context and were open to continued dialogue with investigators. This study could be useful to investigators who are conducting youth valuation studies in different countries and seeking stakeholder input.