Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41629564›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2026

EQ-5D(-Y) Valuation from Adult and Child Perspectives: Where Does the Empirical Evidence Leave Us and How Should We Proceed?

Stefan A Lipman, Zhirui Guo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

2 authors.

Stefan A LipmanErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. lipman@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8784-9650
Zhirui GuoErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Valuing pediatric health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is essential for economic evaluations in child healthcare. Instruments like EQ-5D-Y were developed for this purpose. A key methodological innovation-though controversial-has been the use of the child perspective for valuation of EQ-5D-Y health states, where adults value health states imagining a 10-year-old child. This paper critically reviews empirical findings on this approach, examines potential biases, assesses alignment with stakeholder views, and explores alternatives. We relied on a targeted review of empirical literature, including studies comparing adults valuing their own health (adult perspective) and using child perspectives, as well as stakeholder opinion studies. Findings were synthesized into ten key learnings: (1) Child-perspective valuations are typically higher than adult ones for the same health states. (2) Adults prioritize pain/discomfort and being sad/unhappy differently for children. (3) Child age has minimal impact. Mechanisms contributing to differences between adult and child perspectives include (4) discomfort with child death, (5) different valuations of life duration, (6) psychological distance, (7) emotional difficulty deciding for others, and (8) external goals influencing results. Stakeholder engagement shows that (9) the effects of using child perspectives do not align well with societal preferences, and (10) stakeholders express a preference for approaches that directly involve children and adolescents in valuation tasks. We conclude that relying on child perspectives may introduce systematic biases, potentially undermining the validity of pediatric health utilities. A re-evaluation of current valuation methods for EQ-5D-Y may be warranted, with greater consideration for direct child involvement, mapping techniques, and group-based deliberative approaches.

Indexed as

Health StatusQuality of LifeAdultAge FactorsChildCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41629564
PMCPMC12917023

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.