ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2020
An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- How do Health State Values Differ When Respondents Consider Adults Versus Children Living in Those States? A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health State Valuation: A Systematic Review of Progress and New Trends.Applied health economics and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Preference Elicitation Techniques Used in Valuing Children's Health-Related Quality-of-Life: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- The Influence of Perspective on the Valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-3L: A Comparison Using the OPUF Tool and a Discrete Choice Experiment.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Trial
- Justifying and Classifying Adults' Roles in Child Health State Valuation: A Novel Taxonomy.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Enhancing Patient Participation in Co-Productive Decision-Making With Personal Value Sets: Clinical Trial Prototype.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- Nothing about us, without us? A reflection on and call for involving children in the process of valuing child health.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- EQ-5D(-Y) Valuation from Adult and Child Perspectives: Where Does the Empirical Evidence Leave Us and How Should We Proceed?PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Loss aversion in EQ-5D-Y-3L: does it explain differences in willingness to trade-off life years in adults and children?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
- Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for Morocco.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparing heuristic valuation processes between health state valuation from child and adult perspectives.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Article
- Estimating an EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Set for Brazil.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
- The effect of duration and time preference on the gap between adult and child health state valuations in time trade-off.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Article
- Understanding Canadian stakeholders' views on measuring and valuing health for children and adolescents: a qualitative study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Using Age-Specific Values for Pediatric HRQoL in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Is There a Problem to Be Solved? If So, How?PharmacoEconomics · 2023Article
- Understanding the valuation of paediatric health-related quality of life: a qualitative study protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Article
- An investigation of age dependency in Dutch and Chinese values for EQ-5D-Y.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) can be used to obtain latent scale values for the EQ-5D-Y, but these require anchoring at 0 = dead to meet the conventions of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) estimation. The primary aim of this study is to compare four preference elicitation methods for obtaining anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values.
methodsFour methods were tested: visual analogue scale (VAS), DCE (with a duration attribute), lag-time time trade-off (TTO) and the location-of-dead (LOD) approach. In computer-assisted personal interviews, UK general public respondents valued EQ-5D-3L health states from an adult perspective and EQ-5D-Y health states from a 10-year-old child perspective. Respondents completed valuation tasks using all four methods, under both perspectives.
results349 interviews were conducted. Overall, respondents gave lower values under the adult perspective compared to the child perspective, with some variation across methods. The mean TTO value for the worst health state (33333) was about equal to dead in the child perspective and worse than dead in the adult perspective. The mean VAS rescaled value for 33333 was also higher in the child perspective. The DCE produced positive child perspective values and negative adult perspective values, though the models were not consistent. The LOD median rescaled value for 33333 was negative under both perspectives and higher in the child perspective. DISCUSSION: There was broad agreement across methods. Potential criteria for selecting a preferred anchoring method are presented. We conclude by discussing the decision-making circumstances under which utilities and QALY estimates for children and adults need to be commensurate to achieve allocative efficiency.
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.