ReviewPharmacoEconomics2026
EQ-5D(-Y) Valuation from Adult and Child Perspectives: Where Does the Empirical Evidence Leave Us and How Should We Proceed?
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Justifying and Classifying Adults' Roles in Child Health State Valuation: A Novel Taxonomy.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.