Application of classic utilities to published pediatric cost-utility studies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Economic analyses, such as cost-utility analyses (CUAs), are dependent on the quality of the data used. Our objective was to test how health utility values (measurements of patient preference) assessed by recommended methods (classic utilities) would impact the conclusions in published pediatric CUAs. Methods: Classic utilities for pediatric health states were obtained by recommended utility assessment methods, time trade-off, and standard gamble in 4016 parent interviews. To test the impact of these utilities on published studies, we obtained a sample of published pediatric CUAs by searching Medline, EMBASE, EconLit, Health Technology Assessment Database, Cochrane Database on Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Cost Effective Analysis (CEA) Registry at Tufts Medical Center, using search terms for cost-utility analysis. Articles were included when results were presented as cost per quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), the interventions were for children <18 years of age and included at least one of the following health states: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, gastroenteritis, hearing loss, mental retardation, otitis media, seizure disorder, or vision loss. Studies that did not include these or equivalent health states were excluded. For each CUA, we determined utilities (values for patient preference), the utility assessment method used, and presence of one-way sensitivity analyses (SAs) on utilities. When one-way SAs were conducted, we determined if using our classic utilities would change the result of the CUA. When an SA was not presented, we determined if using our classic utilities would tend to support or not support the published conclusions. Results: We evaluated 39 articles. Eighteen articles presented results of one-way SAs on utilities. Seven articles presented SAs over a range that included our classic utilities. In 4 of the 7, using classic utilities would change the conclusion of the study. For the 32 articles where no one-way SA were presented (n = 21), or where the classic utilities fell outside the range tested (n =11), a change to classic utility would tend against the study conclusion in 12 articles (31%). Conclusions: More than a third of published CUA studies could change if pediatric utilities obtained by recommended, classic methods were used. One-way SAs on utilities are often not presented, making comparison between studies challenging.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)219-228
Number of pages10
JournalAcademic Pediatrics
Volume12
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2012

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Pediatrics
Costs and Cost Analysis
Patient Preference
Health
Databases
Biomedical Technology Assessment
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Gastroenteritis
Otitis Media
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity
Hearing Loss
Intellectual Disability
Registries
Epilepsy
Asthma
Economics
Interviews

Keywords

  • child
  • cost benefit analysis
  • cost effectiveness
  • cost-utility analysis
  • quality-adjusted life years
  • utility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

Application of classic utilities to published pediatric cost-utility studies. / Finnell, S. Maria; Carroll, Aaron; Downs, Stephen.

In: Academic Pediatrics, Vol. 12, No. 3, 05.2012, p. 219-228.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{915daecc8a93453bb530f7251d1e3e47,
title = "Application of classic utilities to published pediatric cost-utility studies",
abstract = "Objective: Economic analyses, such as cost-utility analyses (CUAs), are dependent on the quality of the data used. Our objective was to test how health utility values (measurements of patient preference) assessed by recommended methods (classic utilities) would impact the conclusions in published pediatric CUAs. Methods: Classic utilities for pediatric health states were obtained by recommended utility assessment methods, time trade-off, and standard gamble in 4016 parent interviews. To test the impact of these utilities on published studies, we obtained a sample of published pediatric CUAs by searching Medline, EMBASE, EconLit, Health Technology Assessment Database, Cochrane Database on Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Cost Effective Analysis (CEA) Registry at Tufts Medical Center, using search terms for cost-utility analysis. Articles were included when results were presented as cost per quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), the interventions were for children <18 years of age and included at least one of the following health states: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, gastroenteritis, hearing loss, mental retardation, otitis media, seizure disorder, or vision loss. Studies that did not include these or equivalent health states were excluded. For each CUA, we determined utilities (values for patient preference), the utility assessment method used, and presence of one-way sensitivity analyses (SAs) on utilities. When one-way SAs were conducted, we determined if using our classic utilities would change the result of the CUA. When an SA was not presented, we determined if using our classic utilities would tend to support or not support the published conclusions. Results: We evaluated 39 articles. Eighteen articles presented results of one-way SAs on utilities. Seven articles presented SAs over a range that included our classic utilities. In 4 of the 7, using classic utilities would change the conclusion of the study. For the 32 articles where no one-way SA were presented (n = 21), or where the classic utilities fell outside the range tested (n =11), a change to classic utility would tend against the study conclusion in 12 articles (31{\%}). Conclusions: More than a third of published CUA studies could change if pediatric utilities obtained by recommended, classic methods were used. One-way SAs on utilities are often not presented, making comparison between studies challenging.",
keywords = "child, cost benefit analysis, cost effectiveness, cost-utility analysis, quality-adjusted life years, utility",
author = "Finnell, {S. Maria} and Aaron Carroll and Stephen Downs",
year = "2012",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.acap.2011.09.003",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "219--228",
journal = "Academic Pediatrics",
issn = "1876-2859",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Application of classic utilities to published pediatric cost-utility studies

AU - Finnell, S. Maria

AU - Carroll, Aaron

AU - Downs, Stephen

PY - 2012/5

Y1 - 2012/5

N2 - Objective: Economic analyses, such as cost-utility analyses (CUAs), are dependent on the quality of the data used. Our objective was to test how health utility values (measurements of patient preference) assessed by recommended methods (classic utilities) would impact the conclusions in published pediatric CUAs. Methods: Classic utilities for pediatric health states were obtained by recommended utility assessment methods, time trade-off, and standard gamble in 4016 parent interviews. To test the impact of these utilities on published studies, we obtained a sample of published pediatric CUAs by searching Medline, EMBASE, EconLit, Health Technology Assessment Database, Cochrane Database on Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Cost Effective Analysis (CEA) Registry at Tufts Medical Center, using search terms for cost-utility analysis. Articles were included when results were presented as cost per quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), the interventions were for children <18 years of age and included at least one of the following health states: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, gastroenteritis, hearing loss, mental retardation, otitis media, seizure disorder, or vision loss. Studies that did not include these or equivalent health states were excluded. For each CUA, we determined utilities (values for patient preference), the utility assessment method used, and presence of one-way sensitivity analyses (SAs) on utilities. When one-way SAs were conducted, we determined if using our classic utilities would change the result of the CUA. When an SA was not presented, we determined if using our classic utilities would tend to support or not support the published conclusions. Results: We evaluated 39 articles. Eighteen articles presented results of one-way SAs on utilities. Seven articles presented SAs over a range that included our classic utilities. In 4 of the 7, using classic utilities would change the conclusion of the study. For the 32 articles where no one-way SA were presented (n = 21), or where the classic utilities fell outside the range tested (n =11), a change to classic utility would tend against the study conclusion in 12 articles (31%). Conclusions: More than a third of published CUA studies could change if pediatric utilities obtained by recommended, classic methods were used. One-way SAs on utilities are often not presented, making comparison between studies challenging.

AB - Objective: Economic analyses, such as cost-utility analyses (CUAs), are dependent on the quality of the data used. Our objective was to test how health utility values (measurements of patient preference) assessed by recommended methods (classic utilities) would impact the conclusions in published pediatric CUAs. Methods: Classic utilities for pediatric health states were obtained by recommended utility assessment methods, time trade-off, and standard gamble in 4016 parent interviews. To test the impact of these utilities on published studies, we obtained a sample of published pediatric CUAs by searching Medline, EMBASE, EconLit, Health Technology Assessment Database, Cochrane Database on Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Cost Effective Analysis (CEA) Registry at Tufts Medical Center, using search terms for cost-utility analysis. Articles were included when results were presented as cost per quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), the interventions were for children <18 years of age and included at least one of the following health states: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, gastroenteritis, hearing loss, mental retardation, otitis media, seizure disorder, or vision loss. Studies that did not include these or equivalent health states were excluded. For each CUA, we determined utilities (values for patient preference), the utility assessment method used, and presence of one-way sensitivity analyses (SAs) on utilities. When one-way SAs were conducted, we determined if using our classic utilities would change the result of the CUA. When an SA was not presented, we determined if using our classic utilities would tend to support or not support the published conclusions. Results: We evaluated 39 articles. Eighteen articles presented results of one-way SAs on utilities. Seven articles presented SAs over a range that included our classic utilities. In 4 of the 7, using classic utilities would change the conclusion of the study. For the 32 articles where no one-way SA were presented (n = 21), or where the classic utilities fell outside the range tested (n =11), a change to classic utility would tend against the study conclusion in 12 articles (31%). Conclusions: More than a third of published CUA studies could change if pediatric utilities obtained by recommended, classic methods were used. One-way SAs on utilities are often not presented, making comparison between studies challenging.

KW - child

KW - cost benefit analysis

KW - cost effectiveness

KW - cost-utility analysis

KW - quality-adjusted life years

KW - utility

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861168845&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861168845&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.acap.2011.09.003

DO - 10.1016/j.acap.2011.09.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 22075466

AN - SCOPUS:84861168845

VL - 12

SP - 219

EP - 228

JO - Academic Pediatrics

JF - Academic Pediatrics

SN - 1876-2859

IS - 3

ER -