The longitudinal validity of proxy-reported CHU9D

Rasmus Trap Wolf, Julie Ratcliffe, Gang Chen, Pia Jeppesen, Rasmus Trap Wolf, Julie Ratcliffe, Gang Chen, Pia Jeppesen

Abstract

Objectives: The Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) currently represents the only preference-based health-related quality-of-life instrument designed exclusively from its inception for application with children. The objective of this study was to examine the construct validity and responsiveness of the proxy-reported (parent) CHU9D in a mental health setting using utility weights derived from an adult and adolescent population, respectively.

Methods: The discriminant validity and convergent validity were examined using the mental health-specific 'The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire' (SDQ) and the generic KIDSCREEN-27. Responsiveness was assessed by examining the floor-ceiling effects, the magnitude of change over time, and the ability to differentiate between improvement and no improvement.

Results: The study included 396 children with mental health problems. CHU9D showed good construct validity, with correlation coefficients ranging between 0.329 and 0.571 for SDQ Impact score and KIDSCREEN-27 Psychological Well-being. CHU9D was able to distinguish between groups of children with different levels of mental health problems (p < 0.001). The absolute magnitudes of the group mean differences were larger using adolescent weights. No evidence of a floor/ceiling effect was found at the baseline. A standardized response mean of 0.634-0.654 was found for the children who experienced clinically significant improvements. CHU9D was able to discriminate between children who experienced positive and no health improvements (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: This study provides the first evidence on responsiveness for CHU9D in a mental health context. The findings demonstrate that CHU9D is an appropriate HRQOL measure for use in mental health trials. Furthermore, the results show that the preference weights generated from an adolescent population resulted in the larger mean differences between groups.

Keywords: Adolescents; CHU9D; Children; Health state utility value; Health-related quality of life; Mental health; Preference weights.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Romeo R, Byford S, Knapp M. Economic evaluations of child and adolescent mental health interventions: a systematic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2005;46(9):919–930. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.00407.x.
    1. Hill H, Rowen D, Pennington B, Wong R, Wailoo A. A review of the methods used to generate utility values in nice technology assessments for children and adolescents. Value in Health. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.011.
    1. Rowen D, Rivero-Arias O, Devlin N, Ratcliffe J. Review of valuation methods of preference-based measures of health for economic evaluation in child and adolescent populations: where are we now and where are we going? PharmacoEconomics. 2020;38(4):325–340. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00873-7.
    1. Chen G, Ratcliffe J. A review of the development and application of generic multi-attribute utility instruments for paediatric populations. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(10):1013–1028. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0286-7.
    1. Stevens K. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Quality of Life Research. 2009;18(8):1105–1113. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9524-9.
    1. Chen G, Flynn T, Stevens K, Brazier J, Huynh E, Sawyer M, Ratcliffe J. Assessing the health-related quality of life of australian adolescents: an empirical comparison of the child health utility 9D and EQ-5D-Y instruments. Value in Health. 2015;18(4):432–438. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.014.
    1. Petersen, K. D., Chen, G., Mpundu-Kaambwa, C., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., & Ratcliffe, J. (2018). Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Adolescent Populations: An Empirical Comparison of the CHU9D and the PedsQLTM 4.0 Short Form 15. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 11(1), 29–37.
    1. Ratcliffe J, Huynh E, Stevens K, Brazier J, Sawyer M, Flynn T. 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: adolescent versus adult values for the CHU-9D. Health Economics. 2016;25(4):486–496. doi: 10.1002/hec.3165.
    1. Ratcliffe J, Stevens K, Flynn T, Brazier J, Sawyer M. An assessment of the construct validity of the CHU9D in the Australian adolescent general population. Quality of Life Research. 2012;21(4):717–725. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9971-y.
    1. Stevens K, Ratcliffe J. 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 in Health. 2012;15(8):1092–1099. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.011.
    1. Petersen KD, Ratcliffe J, Chen G, Serles D, Frøsig CS, Olesen AV. The construct validity of the Child Health Utility 9D-DK instrument. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2019 doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1256-0.
    1. Canaway AG, Frew EJ. Measuring preference-based quality of life in children aged 6–7 years: a comparison of the performance of the CHU-9D and EQ-5D-Y—the WAVES Pilot Study. Quality of Life Research. 2013;22(1):173–183. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0119-5.
    1. Frew, E. J., Pallan, M., Lancashire, E., Hemming, K., Adab, P., & on behalf of the WAVES Study co-investigators . Is utility-based quality of life associated with overweight in children? Evidence from the UK WAVES randomised controlled study: BMC Pediatrics; 2015.
    1. Furber G, Segal L. The validity of the Child Health Utility instrument (CHU9D) as a routine outcome measure for use in child and adolescent mental health services. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0218-4.
    1. Stevens K. Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;30(8):729–747. doi: 10.2165/11599120-000000000-00000.
    1. Ratcliffe J, Huynh E, Chen G, Stevens K, Swait J, Brazier J, Flynn T. Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm. Social Science & Medicine. 2016;157:48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.042.
    1. Jeppesen P, Wolf RT, Nielsen SM, Christensen R, Plessen KJ, Bilenberg N, Correll CU. Effectiveness of transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy compared with management as usual for youth with common mental health problems: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020 doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.4045.
    1. Wolf RT, Puggaard LB, Pedersen MMA, Pagsberg AK, Silverman WK, Correll CU, et al. Systematic identification and stratification of help-seeking school-aged youth with mental health problems: a novel approach to stage-based stepped-care. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s00787-021-01718-5.
    1. Wolf RT, Jeppesen P, Gyrd-Hansen D. Evaluation of a screening algorithm using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire to identify children with mental health problems: A five-year register-based follow-up on school performance and healthcare use. PLoS ONE. 2019 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223314.
    1. Ravens-Sieberer, U., Auquier, P., Erhart, M., Gosch, A., Rajmil, L., Bruil, J., the European KIDSCREEN Group The KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Quality of Life Research. 2007;16(8):1347–1356. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9240-2.
    1. Arnfred, J., Svendsen, K., Rask, C., Jeppesen, P., Fensbo, L., Houmann, T., Bilenberg, N. (2019) Danish norms for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Dan Med J, 66(6).
    1. Goodman A, Goodman R. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a Dimensional Measure of Child Mental Health. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2009;48(4):400–403. doi: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e3181985068.
    1. Goodman R, Meltzer H, Bailey V. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. Adolescent Psychiatry. 1998;7(3):7.
    1. Goodman R. The extended version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1999;40(5):791. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00494.
    1. Niclasen J, Teasdale TW, Andersen A-MN, Skovgaard AM, Elberling H, Obel C. psychometric properties of the Danish strength and difficulties questionnaire: the SDQ Assessed for More than 70,000 raters in four different cohorts. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(2):e32025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032025.
    1. Goodman R. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1997;38(5):581–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x.
    1. Robitail, S., Ravens-Sieberer, U., Simeoni, M.-C., Rajmil, L., Bruil, J., Power, M., the KIDSCREEN Group Testing the structural and cross-cultural validity of the KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life questionnaire. Quality of Life Research. 2007;16(8):1335–1345. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9241-1.
    1. Ravens-Sieberer U, Europe KG, editors. The Kidscreen questionnaires: quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents: handbook. 3. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; 2016.
    1. Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research. 1995;4(4):293–307. doi: 10.1007/BF01593882.
    1. Stringaris A, Goodman R. The value of measuring impact alongside symptoms in children and adolescents: a longitudinal assessment in a community sample. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2013;41(7):1109–1120. doi: 10.1007/s10802-013-9744-x.
    1. Mulhern B, Mukuria C, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Soeteman D, Brazier J. Using generic preference-based measures in mental health: psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2014;205(03):236–243. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.122283.
    1. Dickerson JF, Feeny DH, Clarke GN, MacMillan AL, Lynch FL. Evidence on the longitudinal construct validity of major generic and utility measures of health-related quality of life in teens with depression. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(2):447–454. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1728-9.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅