ArticleJournal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine2017
Crowdsourcing utility estimation for spina bifida in the general population.
Article in Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health state utilities associated with invasive pneumococcal disease, pneumonia, and recurrent acute otitis media in young children.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Utility estimation for neurogenic bowel dysfunction in the general population.Journal of pediatric urology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCost-utility analyses (CUA) are useful when the treatment conditions depend on patient preferences that are in turn dependent on health state utility value. Spina bifida (SB) is an example of such a preference-sensitive condition. Historically, the SB utility value for CUA has been gathered via a traditional face-to-face interview. However, due to funding and time constrains, utility estimation via online crowdsourcing has recently gained popularity. Our aim was to estimate the utility value for a generic SB health state using a validated online tool.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of American adults was conducted using the time-trade-off (TTO) method. Participants were recruited from an online crowdsourcing interface, Amazon's Mechanical Turk (mTurk). Demographic information and prior knowledge of SB were assessed. Respondents were provided a written passage and an online video explaining SB and its potential associated comorbidities. Participants were queried on hypothetical ascending time-trades from a child-parent dyad perspective to determine the utility of a SB health state in an affected 6-year-old child. Respondents were also asked to indicate the percentage of time traded from their life in relation to their child's. Utility estimates were then calculated and compared using bivariate and multivariate analyses.
resultsWe obtained 503 responses (85% response rate). Mean respondent age was 34 (± 11); 247 (49%) were female; 386 (77%) were white; 189 (38%) were married, and 234 (46%) had children. Mean proportion of longevity traded by participants in the dyadic interaction was 66% (± 27) from the parent's life. Only 51 respondents (9%) reported having "ample" prior knowledge of SB; 8 respondents (0.02%) had SB themselves. Few others had previous experience with SB or myelomeningocele either in a child (4, 1%), or friend/relative (28, 5%). Compared with a perfect health state of 1.0, we found mean utilities of 0.85 (± 0.20) for SB.
conclusionsUtility estimation for SB is feasible through crowdsourcing, and the resultant values are similar to previous estimates using traditional techniques. Subjects view the SB health state to be inferior to perfect health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.