Abstract
Background and Objective
The CP-6D is a new preference-based measure derived from the CPQOL, a cerebral palsy-specific quality-of-life questionnaire. The CP-6D contains six dimensions, each with five levels. A preference-based value set is required to score the CP-6D on a utility scale and render it suitable for cost-utility analysis. This study aims to estimate the utility value set for the CP-6D for interventions for people with cerebral palsy (CP).
Methods
A discrete choice experiment was designed and administrated to an adult Australian online panel. Each respondent answered 12 choice sets. Each choice was presented as a combination of the health state from the CP-6D and duration spent in that health state before death. Conditional logit and mixed logit regression were used to analyse the data. The utility values were estimated as a ratio of the coefficient of each dimension to the coefficient of the duration.
Results
A total of 2002 participants completed the survey and responded to each choice. Generally, the dimension levels were monotonic, meaning the coefficients reflected the ordered nature of the levels in each dimension. The dimensions relating to manual ability, social well-being and acceptance had the greatest effect on choice. The value of the worst ‘pits’ health state is − 0.582.
Conclusion
This study provides the first CP-specific utility value set that can potentially be used in cost-utility analyses of interventions for people with CP where the CPQOL has been applied, both prospectively and retrospectively.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Nord E. Health state values from multiattribute utility instruments need correction. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):371–4. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002091.
Brazier J, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Yang Y, et al. Develo** and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2012;16(32):1–114. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16320.
Torrance GW, Keresteci MA, Casey RW, Rosner AJ, Ryan N, Breton MC. Development and initial validation of a new preference-based disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for erectile function. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(2):349–59. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000018482.71580.f2.
Dowie J. Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. Health Econ. 2002;11(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.667.
Stolk EA, Busschbach JJ. Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(4):363–71. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023453405252.
Brazier JE, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Yang Y, et al. Develo** and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(32):1–114. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16320.
Mulhern B, Norman R, Street DJ, Viney R. One method, many methodological choices: a structured review of discrete-choice experiments for health state valuation. PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37(1):29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0714-6.
Bahrampour M, Byrnes J, Norman R, Scuffham PA, Downes M. Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods. Eur J Health Econ. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01189-6.
Mangham LJ, Hanson K, McPake B. How to do (or not to do) … designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan. 2008;24(2):151–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czn047.
Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, Burgess L, Cronin P, King M, et al. Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(6):773–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13503499.
Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31(1):306–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.11.004.
Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12:S5–S9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00515.x.
Reddihough D. Cerebral palsy in childhood. Aust Fam Physician. 2011;40(4):192–6.
Rosenbaum P, Paneth N, Leviton A, Goldstein M, Bax M, Damiano D, et al. A report: the definition and classification of cerebral palsy April 2006. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl. 2007;109(suppl 109):8–14.
Reddihough DS, Collins KJ. The epidemiology and causes of cerebral palsy. Austral J Physiother. 2003;49(1):7–12.
Nelson KB. Causative factors in cerebral palsy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;51(4):749–62.
Cerebral Palsy Australia. The economic impact of cerebral palsy in Australia in 2007. Access Economics Pty Ltd; 2008. p. 74.
Davis E, Shelly A, Waters E, Davern M. Measuring the quality of life of children with cerebral palsy: comparing the conceptual differences and psychometric properties of three instruments. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010;52(2):174–80.
Bahrampour M, Downes M, Boyd RN, Scuffham PA, Byrnes J. Using Rasch and factor analysis to develop a Proxy-Reported health state classification (descriptive) system for Cerebral Palsy. Disabil Rehabil. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1709565.
Mpundu-Kaambwa C, Chen G, Huynh E, Russo R, Ratcliffe J. A review of preference-based measures for the assessment of quality of life in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Qual Life Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1837-0.
Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5(2):141–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199603)5:2<141:Aid-hec189>3.0.Co;2-n.
Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2013;11(3):287–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0035-z.
Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, Cronin P, King MT, Ratcliffe J, et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health states. Health Econ. 2014;23(6):729–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2953.
King MT, Viney R, Simon Pickard A, Rowen D, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, et al. Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(2):225–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5.
Kuha J. AIC and BIC: comparisons of assumptions and performance. Sociol Methods Res. 2004;33(2):188–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124103262065.
McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics, Academic Press. 1973. p. 105–42.
Norman R, Viney R, Aaronson N, Brazier J, Cella D, Costa D, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):637–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3.
Bleichrodt H, Wakker P, Johannesson M. Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. J Risk Uncertain. 1997;15(2):107–14. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007726117003.
Gu Y, Norman R, Viney R. Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments—a Qaly space model approach. Health Econ. 2014;23(9):1098–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3066.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2009.
Commonwealth of Australia. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submission to the pharmaceuticals benefits advisory committee: including submission involving economic analysis. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Office; 2016.
Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Walter S, Russell D, Wood E, Galuppi B. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1997;39(4):214–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1997.tb07414.x.
Eliasson AC, Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Rosblad B, Beckung E, Arner M, Ohrvall AM, et al. The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy: scale development and evidence of validity and reliability. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48(7):549–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012162206001162.
Hidecker MJC, Paneth N, Rosenbaum PL, Kent RD, Lillie J, Eulenberg JB, et al. Develo** and validating the Communication Function Classification System for individuals with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53(8):704–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.03996.x.
Shah KK, Mulhern B, Longworth L, Janssen MF. Views of the UK general public on important aspects of health not captured by EQ-5D. Patient. 2017;10(6):701–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0240-1.
Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr RD. The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):375–84. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002092.
Medvedev ON, Landhuis CE. Exploring constructs of well-being, happiness and quality of life. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4903-e. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4903.
Blanchflower DG, Oswald AJ. Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. J Public Econ. 2004;88(7–8):1359–86.
Schünemann J, Strulik H, Trimborn T. Going from bad to worse: adaptation to poor health spending, longevity, and the value of life. J Econ Behav Organ. 2017;140:130–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.02.018.
Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, King M, Street D, Ratcliffe J. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1194–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00581.x.
Fedrizzi E, Pagliano E, Andreucci E, Oleari G. Hand function in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: prospective follow-up and functional outcome in adolescence. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2003;45(2):85–91.
Cerebral Palsy: hope through research. NIH Publication Office of Communications and Public Liaison, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health. 2013.
Newman CJ, O'Regan M, Hensey O. Sleep disorders in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48(7):564–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2006.tb01316.x.
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15(8):797–811. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1104.
Lim S, Jonker MF, Oppe M, Donkers B, Stolk E. Severity-stratified discrete choice experiment designs for health state evaluations. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(11):1377–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0694-6.
Helgesson G, Ernstsson O, Åström M, Burström K. Whom should we ask? A systematic literature review of the arguments regarding the most accurate source of information for valuation of health states. Qual Life Res. 2020:1–18.
Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN, Rowen D, Brazier JE. Exploring the consistency of the SF-6D. Value Health. 2013;16(6):1023–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.018.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Dr. Megan Cross for her assistance in proof-reading this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Professor Scuffham was part-funded by an NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (1136923).
Conflict of interest
All authors have no conflict of interest in relation to material reported in the article.
Ethical approval
The ethics of this study, ethical approval was given by Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 2018/930).
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study might be available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because they contain information that could compromise research participant privacy/consent.
Author contributions
MB, RN, JB, MD and PS conceived the study and contributed to the design of the study; MB wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors read, contributed and approved the manuscript.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bahrampour, M., Norman, R., Byrnes, J. et al. Utility Values for the CP-6D, a Cerebral Palsy-Specific Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument, Using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Patient 14, 129–138 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00468-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00468-x