SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2024
Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Do Moral Views Change during a Crisis? An Experiment on Health Care Priority Setting.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Are Health Gains to Children and Adolescents More Important Than Health Gains to Adults? A Person Trade-Off Study.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Practical Considerations for Incorporating Equity More Explicitly in Australian Health Technology Assessment Processes.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- EQ-5D(-Y) Valuation from Adult and Child Perspectives: Where Does the Empirical Evidence Leave Us and How Should We Proceed?PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Single-Step Universal First-Trimester Cytomegalovirus Screening and Valacyclovir Prophylaxis in Pregnancy: A Cost-Utility Analysis in a High Seroprevalence Setting.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Public preferences for the value and implementation of genomic newborn screening: Insights from two discrete choice experiments in Australia.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- "Blanket rules just don't work": Qualitative exploration of the relative value of child and adult quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains for health technology assessment.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Article
- Treatment Preferences for Acute Allergic Reactions: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to synthesise knowledge on the relative social value of child and adult health.
methodsQuantitative and qualitative studies that evaluated the willingness of the public to prioritise treatments for children over adults were included. A search to September 2023 was undertaken. Completeness of reporting was assessed using a checklist derived from Johnston et al. Findings were tabulated by study type (matching/person trade-off, discrete choice experiment, willingness to pay, opinion survey or qualitative). Evidence in favour of children was considered in total, by length or quality of life, methodology and respondent characteristics.
resultsEighty-eight studies were included; willingness to pay (n = 9), matching/person trade-off (n = 12), discrete choice experiments (n = 29), opinion surveys (n = 22) and qualitative (n = 16), with one study simultaneously included as an opinion survey. From 88 studies, 81 results could be ascertained. Across all studies irrespective of method or other characteristics, 42 findings supported prioritising children, while 12 provided evidence favouring adults in preference to children. The remainder supported equal prioritisation or found diverse or unclear views. Of those studies considering prioritisation within the under 18 years of age group, nine findings favoured older children over younger children (including for life saving interventions), six favoured younger children and five found diverse views.
conclusionsThe balance of evidence suggests the general public favours prioritising children over adults, but this view was not found across all studies. There are research gaps in understanding the public's views on the value of health gains to very young children and the motivation behind the public's views on the value of child relative to adult health gains. CLINICAL
trial registrationThe review is registered at PROSPERO number: CRD42021244593. There were two amendments to the protocol: (1) some additional search terms were added to the search strategy prior to screening to ensure coverage and (2) a more formal quality assessment was added to the process at the data extraction stage. This assessment had not been identified at the protocol writing stage.
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.