Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health.

Peasgood, T; Howell, M; Raghunandan, R; Salisbury, A; Sellars, M; Chen, G; Coast, J; Craig, JC; Devlin, NJ; Howard, K; Lancsar, E; Petrou, S; Ratcliffe, J; Viney, R; Wong, G; Norman, R; Donaldson, C; Quality Of Life in Kids: Key evidence to strengthen decisions in Australia (QUOKKA), Tools for Outcomes Research to measure, value Child Health (TORCH) project teams,

Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health.

Peasgood, T Howell, M Raghunandan, R Salisbury, A Sellars, M Chen, G Coast, J Craig, JC Devlin, NJ Howard, K Lancsar, E Petrou, S Ratcliffe, J Viney, R

Wong, G Norman, R Donaldson, C Quality Of Life in Kids: Key evidence to strengthen decisions in Australia (QUOKKA), Tools for Outcomes Research to measure, value Child Health (TORCH) project teams,

Permalink

Publisher:: ADIS INT LTD
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Pharmacoeconomics, 2023
Issue Date:: 2023-11-09

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (2.01 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Peasgood, T
dc.contributor.author	Howell, M
dc.contributor.author	Raghunandan, R
dc.contributor.author	Salisbury, A
dc.contributor.author	Sellars, M
dc.contributor.author	Chen, G
dc.contributor.author	Coast, J
dc.contributor.author	Craig, JC
dc.contributor.author	Devlin, NJ
dc.contributor.author	Howard, K
dc.contributor.author	Lancsar, E
dc.contributor.author	Petrou, S
dc.contributor.author	Ratcliffe, J
dc.contributor.author	Viney, R https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0039-9635
dc.contributor.author	Wong, G
dc.contributor.author	Norman, R
dc.contributor.author	Donaldson, C
dc.contributor.author	Quality Of Life in Kids: Key evidence to strengthen decisions in Australia (QUOKKA), Tools for Outcomes Research to measure, value Child Health (TORCH) project teams,
dc.date.accessioned	2023-12-13T00:05:49Z
dc.date.available	2023-10-09
dc.date.available	2023-12-13T00:05:49Z
dc.date.issued	2023-11-09
dc.identifier.citation	Pharmacoeconomics, 2023
dc.identifier.issn	1170-7690
dc.identifier.issn	1179-2027
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/173815
dc.description.abstract	OBJECTIVES: We aimed to synthesise knowledge on the relative social value of child and adult health. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative studies that evaluated the willingness of the public to prioritise treatments for children over adults were included. A search to September 2023 was undertaken. Completeness of reporting was assessed using a checklist derived from Johnston et al. Findings were tabulated by study type (matching/person trade-off, discrete choice experiment, willingness to pay, opinion survey or qualitative). Evidence in favour of children was considered in total, by length or quality of life, methodology and respondent characteristics. RESULTS: Eighty-eight studies were included; willingness to pay (n = 9), matching/person trade-off (n = 12), discrete choice experiments (n = 29), opinion surveys (n = 22) and qualitative (n = 16), with one study simultaneously included as an opinion survey. From 88 studies, 81 results could be ascertained. Across all studies irrespective of method or other characteristics, 42 findings supported prioritising children, while 12 provided evidence favouring adults in preference to children. The remainder supported equal prioritisation or found diverse or unclear views. Of those studies considering prioritisation within the under 18 years of age group, nine findings favoured older children over younger children (including for life saving interventions), six favoured younger children and five found diverse views. CONCLUSIONS: The balance of evidence suggests the general public favours prioritising children over adults, but this view was not found across all studies. There are research gaps in understanding the public's views on the value of health gains to very young children and the motivation behind the public's views on the value of child relative to adult health gains. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review is registered at PROSPERO number: CRD42021244593. There were two amendments to the protocol: (1) some additional search terms were added to the search strategy prior to screening to ensure coverage and (2) a more formal quality assessment was added to the process at the data extraction stage. This assessment had not been identified at the protocol writing stage.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	ADIS INT LTD
dc.relation.ispartof	Pharmacoeconomics
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s40273-023-01327-x
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	11 Medical and Health Sciences, 14 Economics
dc.subject.classification	Health Policy & Services
dc.subject.classification	3214 Pharmacology and pharmaceutical sciences
dc.subject.classification	3801 Applied economics
dc.subject.classification	4203 Health services and systems
dc.title	Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.location.activity	New Zealand
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences
utslib.for	14 Economics
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHERE - Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2023-12-13T00:05:47Z
pubs.publication-status	Published online

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to synthesise knowledge on the relative social value of child and adult health. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative studies that evaluated the willingness of the public to prioritise treatments for children over adults were included. A search to September 2023 was undertaken. Completeness of reporting was assessed using a checklist derived from Johnston et al. Findings were tabulated by study type (matching/person trade-off, discrete choice experiment, willingness to pay, opinion survey or qualitative). Evidence in favour of children was considered in total, by length or quality of life, methodology and respondent characteristics. RESULTS: Eighty-eight studies were included; willingness to pay (n = 9), matching/person trade-off (n = 12), discrete choice experiments (n = 29), opinion surveys (n = 22) and qualitative (n = 16), with one study simultaneously included as an opinion survey. From 88 studies, 81 results could be ascertained. Across all studies irrespective of method or other characteristics, 42 findings supported prioritising children, while 12 provided evidence favouring adults in preference to children. The remainder supported equal prioritisation or found diverse or unclear views. Of those studies considering prioritisation within the under 18 years of age group, nine findings favoured older children over younger children (including for life saving interventions), six favoured younger children and five found diverse views. CONCLUSIONS: The balance of evidence suggests the general public favours prioritising children over adults, but this view was not found across all studies. There are research gaps in understanding the public's views on the value of health gains to very young children and the motivation behind the public's views on the value of child relative to adult health gains. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review is registered at PROSPERO number: CRD42021244593. There were two amendments to the protocol: (1) some additional search terms were added to the search strategy prior to screening to ensure coverage and (2) a more formal quality assessment was added to the process at the data extraction stage. This assessment had not been identified at the protocol writing stage.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/173815