Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40151870›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025

"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.

Marcus Sellars, Joanna Coast, Emily Lancsar, Cam Donaldson, Stacy M Carter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Marcus SellarsDepartment of Health Economics Wellbeing and Society, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Health & Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9968-2140
Joanna CoastHealth Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Emily LancsarDepartment of Health Economics Wellbeing and Society, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Health & Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Cam DonaldsonDepartment of Health Economics Wellbeing and Society, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Health & Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Stacy M CarterAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values (ACHEEV), School of Health and Society, Faculty of the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Keiraville, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust DBT India Alliance 205384/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEffective allocation of scarce healthcare resources involves complex ethical and technical evaluations, with decision makers sometimes utilizing a societal perspective in health technology assessment (HTA). This study aimed to explore societal perspectives on healthcare resource allocation within Australia's HTA framework, focusing on the valuation of health gains for children and young people (CYP) compared to adults.

methodsIn-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted with ten young people (aged 15-17) and twenty adults between October 2021 and April 2022. Participants were purposively sampled for diverse characteristics and completed an online information survey prior to the interviews, introducing relevant concepts. Interviews were analyzed using inductive coding, categorization, and constant comparison.

resultsParticipants expressed nuanced perspectives on HTA processes, generally opposing numeric weighting and preferring a deliberative approach based on committee judgment. Although most participants acknowledged some moral relevance of CYP status in HTA, opinions varied on its operationalization. A sizable minority, including those with extensive health system experience, did not view CYP status as morally relevant, though some noted specific service gaps for CYP (e.g., mental health care, pain management). Participants identified a spectrum of factors, both person-centered and intervention related, that often surpassed the relevance of CYP status, including addressing severity, unmet needs, prevention, and early intervention, with an emphasis on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

conclusionOur findings highlight the inherent challenges in navigating the complexities of HTA and the critical need for HTA frameworks to be adaptable and inclusive, effectively integrating societal preferences to enhance healthcare policy's equity and responsiveness.

Indexed as

Quality-Adjusted Life YearsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAdolescentAdultAustraliaChildDecision MakingFemaleHealth Care RationingHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchYoung AdultAdolescent health servicesAustraliadecision makinghealth technology assessmentquality-adjusted life years

Identifiers

PMID40151870
PMCPMC12019764

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.