Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37237136›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2023

A systematic review of health state utility values and psychometric performance of generic preference-based instruments for children and adolescents with mental health problems.

Thao T H Thai, Lidia Engel, Joahna Kevin Perez, Eng Joo Tan, Sandra Eades, Lena Sanci, Cathrine Mihalopoulos

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Content and face validity of preference-based quality of life instruments in indigenous youth experiencing mental health problems: a qualitative study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thao T H ThaiMonash University Health Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. thao.thai@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0995-7509
Lidia EngelMonash University Health Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Joahna Kevin PerezMonash University Health Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Eng Joo TanMonash University Health Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Sandra EadesCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, 780 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
Lena SanciDepartment of General Practice, Melbourne Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, 780 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
Cathrine MihalopoulosMonash University Health Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Monash University · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUMonash Health · AU

Funding

Australian Government GNT 1179461 2019-2023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis paper aims to systematically identify reported health state utility values (HSUVs) in children and adolescents with mental health problems (MHPs) aged less than 25 years; to summarise the techniques used to elicit HSUVs; and to examine the psychometric performance of the identified multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) used in this space.

methodsA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Peer-reviewed studies published in English, reporting HSUVs for children and adolescents with MHPs using direct or indirect valuation methods were searched in six databases.

resultsWe found 38 studies reporting HSUVs for 12 types of MHPs across 12 countries between 2005 and October 2021. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression are the most explored MHPs. Disruptive Behaviour Disorder was associated with the lowest reported HSUVs of 0.06 while cannabis use disorder was associated with the highest HSUVs of 0.88. Indirect valuation method through the use of MAUIs (95% of included studies) was the most frequently used approach, while direct valuation methods (Standard Gamble, Time Trade-Off) were only used to derive HSUVs in ADHD. This review found limited evidence of the psychometric performance of MAUIs used in children and adolescents with MHPs.

conclusionThis review provides an overview of HSUVs of various MHPs, the current practice to generate HSUVs, and the psychometric performance of MAUIs used in children and adolescents with MHPs. It highlights the need for more rigorous and extensive psychometric assessments to produce evidence on the suitability of MAUIs used in this area.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeSubstance-Related DisordersAdolescentChildCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMental HealthPsychometricsChildren and adolescentsHealth state utility valuesMental health problems

Identifiers

PMID37237136
PMCPMC10522744
OpenAlexW4378471308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.