Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35072935›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2022

Systematic Review of Conceptual, Age, Measurement and Valuation Considerations for Generic Multidimensional Childhood Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Joseph Kwon, Louise Freijser, Elisabeth Huynh, Martin Howell, Gang Chen, Kamran Khan, Shahd Daher, Nia Roberts, Conrad Harrison, Sarah Smith and 11 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Empirical comparison of health-related quality of life and subjective well-being measures in Australian adolescents.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Multinational stakeholder engagement to inform future development and refinement of the EuroQol toddler and infant populations (EQ-TIPS).The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Measuring health-related quality of life in infants and toddlers: conceptual challenges and proposed recommendations.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Valuing health states for infants and toddlers: challenges and methodological considerations in EQ-TIPS preference elicitation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  15. Developing the EuroQol toddler and infant populations (EQ-TIPS) instrument: qualitative analysis of expert views on content validity and conceptual challenges.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. An Australian Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Joseph Kwon *School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2860-7280
Louise Freijser *Centre for Health Policy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3806-8871
Elisabeth HuynhDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1855-3143
Martin HowellSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9740-712X
Gang ChenCentre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8385-5965
Kamran KhanCentre for Health Economics at Warwick, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4322-9695
Shahd DaherNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6067-9682
Nia RobertsBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1142-6440
Conrad HarrisonNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1428-5751
Sarah SmithDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2013-6963
Nancy DevlinCentre for Health Policy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1561-5361
Kirsten HowardSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0918-7540
Emily LancsarDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2404-6735
Cate BaileyCentre for Health Policy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5030-430X
Jonathan CraigCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2548-4035
Kim DalzielHealth Economics Unit, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4972-8871
Alison HayesSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8679-6040
Brendan MulhernCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3656-8063
Germaine WongSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8422-7269
Julie Ratcliffe *Caring, Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7365-1988
Stavros Petrou *Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK. stavros.petrou@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3121-6050

Funding

Department of Health NF-SI-0616-10103Department of Health NIHR300684Medical Research Council G0501681
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for children (aged ≤ 18 years) present methodological challenges. PROMs can be categorised by their diverse underlying conceptual bases, including functional, disability and health (FDH) status; quality of life (QoL); and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Some PROMs are designed to be accompanied by preference weights. PROMs should account for childhood developmental differences by incorporating age-appropriate health/QoL domains, guidance on respondent type(s) and design. This systematic review aims to identify generic multidimensional childhood PROMs and synthesise their characteristics by conceptual basis, target age, measurement considerations, and the preference-based value sets that accompany them.

methodsThe study protocol was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021230833), and reporting followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted systematic database searches for generic multidimensional childhood PROMs covering the period 2012-2020, which we combined with published PROMs identified by an earlier systematic review that covered the period 1992-2011. A second systematic database search identified preference-based value sets for generic multidimensional PROMs. The PROMs were categorised by conceptual basis (FDH status, QoL and HRQoL) and by target age (namely infants and pre-schoolers aged < 5 years, pre-adolescents aged 5-11, adolescents aged 12-18 and multi-age group coverage). Descriptive statistics assessed how PROM characteristics (domain coverage, respondent type and design) varied by conceptual basis and age categories. Involvement of children in PROM development and testing was assessed to understand content validity. Characteristics of value sets available for the childhood generic multidimensional PROMs were identified and compared.

resultsWe identified 89 PROMs, including 110 versions: 52 FDH, 29 QoL, 12 HRQoL, nine QoL-FDH and eight HRQoL-FDH measures; 20 targeted infants and pre-schoolers, 29 pre-adolescents, 24 adolescents and 37 for multiple age groups. Domain coverage demonstrated development trajectories from observable FDH aspects in infancy through to personal independence and relationships during adolescence. PROMs targeting younger children relied more on informant report, were shorter and had fewer ordinal scale points. One-third of PROMs were developed following qualitative research or surveys with children or parents for concept elicitation. There were 21 preference-based value sets developed by 19 studies of ten generic multidimensional childhood PROMs: seven were based on adolescents' stated preferences, seven were from adults from the perspective of or on behalf of the child, and seven were from adults adopting an adult's perspective. Diverse preference elicitation methods were used to elicit values. Practices with respect to anchoring values on the utility scale also varied considerably. The range and distribution of values reflect these differences, resulting in value sets with notably different properties.

conclusionIdentification and categorisation of generic multidimensional childhood PROMs and value sets by this review can aid the development, selection and interpretation of appropriate measures for clinical and population research and cost-effectiveness-based decision-making.

Indexed as

Health StatusQuality of LifeAdolescentChildDrugs, GenericHumansInfantParentsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSurveys and QuestionnairesDrugs, Generic

Identifiers

PMID35072935
PMCPMC9007803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.