ArticleBMJ open2023
Understanding the valuation of paediatric health-related quality of life: a qualitative study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-5L Using DCE Methods That Account for Nonlinear Time Preferences.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Exploring valuation of a modified EQ-5D-Y-3L adapted for 2-4 year olds: a think-aloud study.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is evidence from previous studies that adults value paediatric health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adult HRQoL differently. Less is known about how adolescents value paediatric HRQoL and whether their valuation and decision-making processes differ from those of adults. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to develop value sets for measures of HRQoL, but there is still much to understand about whether and how the methods choices in the implementation of DCE valuation tasks, such as format, presentation and perspective, affect the decision-making process of participants. This paper describes the protocol for a qualitative study that aims to explore the decision-making process of adults and adolescents when completing DCE valuation tasks. The study will also explore the impact of methodological choices in the design of DCE studies (including decisions about format and presentation) on participants' thinking process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An interview protocol has been developed using DCE valuation tasks. Interviews will be conducted online via Zoom with both an adolescent and adult sample. In the interview, the participant will be asked to go through some DCE valuation tasks while 'thinking aloud'. After completion of the survey, participants will then be asked some predetermined questions in relation to various aspects of the DCE tasks. Interviews will be recorded and transcribed and analysed using a thematic analysis approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for this study has been received for the adult sample (UTS ETH20-9632) as well as the youth sample (UTS ETH22-6970) from the University of Technology Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee. Results from this study will inform the methods to be used in development of value sets for use in the health technology assessment of paediatric interventions and treatments. Findings from this study will also be disseminated through national/international conferences and peer-reviewed journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.