Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40261492›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2025

How do Health State Values Differ When Respondents Consider Adults Versus Children Living in Those States? A Systematic Review.

Ashwini De Silva, Alexander van Heusden, Zhongyu Lang, Nancy Devlin, Richard Norman, Kim Dalziel, Tessa Peasgood, Tianxin Pan

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Child- versus adult-perspective composite time trade-off valuations for the EQ-5D-Y-3L: evidence from the Hungarian valuation study.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  3. Do EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets have common properties, and how do they compare to EQ-5D-5L value sets?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Developing the EuroQol toddler and infant populations (EQ-TIPS) instrument: qualitative analysis of expert views on content validity and conceptual challenges.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. An Australian Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ashwini De SilvaMelbourne Health Economics, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. ashwini.desilva@student.unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4535-442X
Alexander van HeusdenMelbourne Health Economics, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0009-0007-8055-5450
Zhongyu LangErasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2399-6942
Nancy DevlinMelbourne Health Economics, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1561-5361
Richard NormanSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3112-3893
Kim DalzielMelbourne Health Economics, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4972-8871
Tessa PeasgoodMelbourne Health Economics, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8024-7801
Tianxin PanMelbourne Health Economics, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2243-8818

Funding

EuroQol Research Foundation 348-PHD
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis systematic review examines how different perspectives influence the valuation of child health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Specifically, it explores differences in values when health states are assessed by children, adolescents, or adults (or some combination of these), from the perspective of the first person (self) or the third person (other), and whether specifying (or not) the age of the person living the described health state affects the valuations. Recent studies suggest discrepancies for descriptively similar health states potentially owing to differences in respondents' willingness to trade length-of-life for quality-of-life for children, though findings are inconsistent. This review aims to assess: (1) differences in peoples' willingness to trade, (2) differences between the relative importance of dimensions, and (3) factors influencing these differences.

methodsThis systematic review follows PRISMA guidelines. A search in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and EconLit up to November 2024 was undertaken. We included studies where different perspectives and different valuation instruments were considered. We extracted information on study characteristics, instruments, valuation methods, perspective, study design, analytical methods, sample characteristics, differences in values by respondents, and perspective. A multi-level meta-regression assessed the impact of factors affecting the mean differences between perspectives.

resultsIn total, 24 studies were included, which were from 2004 to 2024. Studies used a range of preference elicitation methods and nearly half (38%) used mixed valuation methods. Most studies (71%) used the EQ- 5D-Y- 3L instrument. Overall, 54% of studies compared adults valuing health states for themselves, or other adult versus adults valuing for other children or themselves as children. The multi-level meta-regression found that the severity of the health state and the valuation method has a significant impact on the mean differences between child and adult values for child health states. In most of the studies when adults are respondents, pain or discomfort was considered as the most important dimension. When adolescent respondents value health states the results are mixed. Qualitative studies identified respondents' difficulty imagining a child in ill health and becoming emotional while thinking about child poor health and early death as potential reasons behind differences in child values versus adult values.

conclusionsThe evidence suggests that differences in mean values arise when different perspectives are used in valuing severe child health states by adults. These differences are influenced by factors such as health state severity and valuation method. While the review identified the key factors influencing the differences in mean values, an uncertainty remains regarding the optimal choice of preference elicitation and anchoring methods for child health state valuations. Addressing these gaps could refine future valuation methods for child health-related quality-of-life instruments.

Indexed as

Health StatusQuality of LifeAdolescentAdultAge FactorsChildHumans

Identifiers

PMID40261492
PMCPMC12167273

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.