ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Exploring valuation of a modified EQ-5D-Y-3L adapted for 2-4 year olds: a think-aloud study.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to establish the feasibility of using discrete choice experiments (DCE) to value health states described by the modified EQ-5D-Y-3L adapted for 2-4-year-olds, and to explore participants’ views on relevant preferences, valuation perspective, age framing, and spillover effects, and how all of these are impacted by parental status.
methodsOnline interviews were conducted with Australian adults, comprising six think-aloud DCE (imagining a hypothetical 3-year-old) and open-ended questions to explore the key aims. Interview transcripts were double-coded using an inductive and deductive approach and analysed using framework analysis.
resultsA total of 17 participants took part (parents/caregivers, n = 9; non-parents, n = 8). Participants emphasised the inclusion of preferences from parents/caregivers or professionals who interact with children. Participants tended to instinctively think of their own child or a child they know. Both caregiver and future spillover effects were observed, and participants included information beyond the description of the task when providing valuations. Participants reported a high level of ease and understanding in completing the DCE tasks.
conclusionsDCE appears to be feasible for obtaining stated preferences regarding dimension importance for the modified EQ-5D-Y-3L adapted for 2-4-year-olds. Participants expressed views that preferences for these health states should be elicited from adults with experience of young children. It is important for future valuation studies to examine the types of spillover effects and other factors influencing participants’ assessments of health states for young children.
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.