PMID- 22867783
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20121015
LR  - 20191210
IS  - 1524-4733 (Electronic)
IS  - 1098-3015 (Linking)
VI  - 15
IP  - 5
DP  - 2012 Jul-Aug
TI  - Whose values in health? An empirical comparison of the application of adolescent 
      and adult values for the CHU-9D and AQOL-6D in the Australian adolescent general 
      population.
PG  - 730-6
LID - 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.005 [doi]
AB  - OBJECTIVES: The Child Health Utility-9D (CHU-9D) and the Assessment of Quality of 
      Life-6D (AQOL-6D) presently represent the only two generic preference-based 
      instruments developed for application with young people with both adult- and 
      adolescent-specific scoring algorithms. The main objective of this study was to 
      compare and contrast the application of adult and adolescent scoring algorithms 
      for the CHU-9D and AQOL-6D in valuing the health of a community-based sample of 
      adolescents. METHODS: A Web-based survey including the CHU-9D and the AQOL-6D was 
      developed for administration to adolescents, aged 11 to 17 years, residing in 
      Australia (n = 500). Individual responses to both instruments were converted to 
      values by using first the adult and second the adolescent scoring algorithms 
      pertaining to each instrument. RESULTS: Both the AQOL-6D and the CHU-9D 
      discriminated well according to health status and the presence of long-standing 
      illness regardless of the scoring algorithm. Within each instrument, however, 
      important discrepancies were found in that employment of the adolescent algorithm 
      was found to result in consistently lower mean health state values for the CHU-9D 
      but consistently higher mean health state values for the AQOL-6D relative to the 
      employment of their respective adult algorithms and these differences were 
      statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The differences in adolescent 
      and adult values for identical health states are more profound for the CHU-9D and 
      ultimately may be significant enough to have an impact on health care policy. It 
      is important to note that there are important differences between the CHU-9D 
      instrument and the AQOL-6D instrument that may also have a significant impact on 
      the valuations obtained.
CI  - Copyright (c) 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes 
      Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
FAU - Ratcliffe, Julie
AU  - Ratcliffe J
AD  - Flinders Clinical Effectiveness, Repatriation General Hospital, Flinders 
      University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. julie.ratcliffe@flinders.edu.au
FAU - Stevens, Katherine
AU  - Stevens K
FAU - Flynn, Terry
AU  - Flynn T
FAU - Brazier, John
AU  - Brazier J
FAU - Sawyer, Michael G
AU  - Sawyer MG
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
DEP - 20120607
PL  - United States
TA  - Value Health
JT  - Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics 
      and Outcomes Research
JID - 100883818
SB  - IM
MH  - Adolescent
MH  - Adult
MH  - Age Factors
MH  - *Algorithms
MH  - Australia
MH  - Child
MH  - Data Collection
MH  - Female
MH  - *Health Status
MH  - Humans
MH  - Internet
MH  - Male
MH  - *Outcome Assessment, Health Care
MH  - *Quality of Life
MH  - *Surveys and Questionnaires
EDAT- 2012/08/08 06:00
MHDA- 2012/10/16 06:00
CRDT- 2012/08/08 06:00
PHST- 2011/12/07 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2012/03/29 00:00 [revised]
PHST- 2012/04/04 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2012/08/08 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2012/08/08 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2012/10/16 06:00 [medline]
AID - S1098-3015(12)01548-3 [pii]
AID - 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.005 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):730-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.005. Epub 
      2012 Jun 7.