对年轻人使用的基于特定条件的偏好措施及其评估方法进行系统审查。

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
William King, Lauren Hockley, Tomos Robinson, Angela Bate, Laura Ternent
{"title":"对年轻人使用的基于特定条件的偏好措施及其评估方法进行系统审查。","authors":"William King, Lauren Hockley, Tomos Robinson, Angela Bate, Laura Ternent","doi":"10.1186/s41687-024-00826-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Condition-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments can be more responsive and sensitive to specific conditions and diseases than generic HRQoL instruments. This systematic review aims to identify the condition-specific preference-based instruments that have been used with young people and identify how preference values have been obtained for these instruments. This review will inform future researchers about the methods used to elicit utilities for condition-specific HRQoL instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify condition-specific HRQoL instruments used in young people and the methods used to value these instruments. Published medical and health economic databases were searched from January 1990-March 2022. Articles were deemed eligible for inclusion if a condition-specific preference-based instrument was used in young people (age < 18). Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by at least two reviewers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After deduplication, a total of 4273 articles were eligible for title and abstract screening. Of these, 98 articles were eligible for full-text screening. After full-text screening, 18 articles were included in the review. Valuation studies were the most prevalent study design in the review (44%), followed by mapping studies (38%) and then other designs (18%). Among the valuation studies, the choice of HRQoL instrument, preference elicitation method, anchoring method and perspective varied considerably.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To our knowledge, this review is the first to explore what condition-specific HRQoL instruments have been used in young people. Findings from this review could inform researchers in their choice of methods for measuring and valuing HRQoL. This review illustrates that to date there does not appear to be clear consensus of how to measure and value HRQoL in young people when using condition-specific instruments. The lack of consensus could be influenced by challenges identified in prior research such as limited guidance, ethical issues, and uncertain normative decisions regarding the choice of preference elicitation method. Ordinal methods such as discrete choice experiment and best-worst scaling appear to be preferable for use in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"8 1","pages":"151"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11659529/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of condition-specific preference-based measures used in young people and their valuation methods.\",\"authors\":\"William King, Lauren Hockley, Tomos Robinson, Angela Bate, Laura Ternent\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41687-024-00826-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Condition-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments can be more responsive and sensitive to specific conditions and diseases than generic HRQoL instruments. This systematic review aims to identify the condition-specific preference-based instruments that have been used with young people and identify how preference values have been obtained for these instruments. This review will inform future researchers about the methods used to elicit utilities for condition-specific HRQoL instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify condition-specific HRQoL instruments used in young people and the methods used to value these instruments. Published medical and health economic databases were searched from January 1990-March 2022. Articles were deemed eligible for inclusion if a condition-specific preference-based instrument was used in young people (age < 18). Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by at least two reviewers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After deduplication, a total of 4273 articles were eligible for title and abstract screening. Of these, 98 articles were eligible for full-text screening. After full-text screening, 18 articles were included in the review. Valuation studies were the most prevalent study design in the review (44%), followed by mapping studies (38%) and then other designs (18%). Among the valuation studies, the choice of HRQoL instrument, preference elicitation method, anchoring method and perspective varied considerably.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To our knowledge, this review is the first to explore what condition-specific HRQoL instruments have been used in young people. Findings from this review could inform researchers in their choice of methods for measuring and valuing HRQoL. This review illustrates that to date there does not appear to be clear consensus of how to measure and value HRQoL in young people when using condition-specific instruments. The lack of consensus could be influenced by challenges identified in prior research such as limited guidance, ethical issues, and uncertain normative decisions regarding the choice of preference elicitation method. Ordinal methods such as discrete choice experiment and best-worst scaling appear to be preferable for use in this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11659529/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00826-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00826-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:特定条件的健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)仪器比通用HRQoL仪器对特定条件和疾病的反应更灵敏。本系统综述旨在确定已在年轻人中使用的基于特定条件偏好的工具,并确定如何获得这些工具的偏好值。这篇综述将为未来的研究人员提供有关方法的信息,以引出特定条件HRQoL仪器的实用程序。方法:采用综合搜索策略来确定年轻人使用的条件特异性HRQoL工具以及用于评估这些工具的方法。检索了1990年1月至2022年3月期间出版的医学和卫生经济数据库。如果在年轻人中使用特定条件的偏好工具,则认为文章符合纳入条件(年龄)。结果:经过重复数据删除后,共有4273篇文章符合标题和摘要筛选。其中,98篇文章符合全文筛选的条件。经过全文筛选,18篇文章被纳入综述。评估研究是本综述中最普遍的研究设计(44%),其次是制图研究(38%),然后是其他设计(18%)。在评价研究中,HRQoL工具的选择、偏好激发法、锚定法和视角差异较大。结论:据我们所知,这篇综述首次探讨了在年轻人中使用了哪些特定条件的HRQoL仪器。本综述的研究结果可以为研究人员选择测量和评估HRQoL的方法提供参考。这篇综述表明,迄今为止,在使用特定条件的工具时,如何测量和评价年轻人的HRQoL似乎没有明确的共识。缺乏共识可能受到先前研究中确定的挑战的影响,例如有限的指导、伦理问题和关于偏好诱导方法选择的不确定的规范性决定。离散选择实验和最佳-最差缩放等有序方法似乎更适合用于这一人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A systematic review of condition-specific preference-based measures used in young people and their valuation methods.

Background: Condition-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments can be more responsive and sensitive to specific conditions and diseases than generic HRQoL instruments. This systematic review aims to identify the condition-specific preference-based instruments that have been used with young people and identify how preference values have been obtained for these instruments. This review will inform future researchers about the methods used to elicit utilities for condition-specific HRQoL instruments.

Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify condition-specific HRQoL instruments used in young people and the methods used to value these instruments. Published medical and health economic databases were searched from January 1990-March 2022. Articles were deemed eligible for inclusion if a condition-specific preference-based instrument was used in young people (age < 18). Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by at least two reviewers.

Results: After deduplication, a total of 4273 articles were eligible for title and abstract screening. Of these, 98 articles were eligible for full-text screening. After full-text screening, 18 articles were included in the review. Valuation studies were the most prevalent study design in the review (44%), followed by mapping studies (38%) and then other designs (18%). Among the valuation studies, the choice of HRQoL instrument, preference elicitation method, anchoring method and perspective varied considerably.

Conclusion: To our knowledge, this review is the first to explore what condition-specific HRQoL instruments have been used in young people. Findings from this review could inform researchers in their choice of methods for measuring and valuing HRQoL. This review illustrates that to date there does not appear to be clear consensus of how to measure and value HRQoL in young people when using condition-specific instruments. The lack of consensus could be influenced by challenges identified in prior research such as limited guidance, ethical issues, and uncertain normative decisions regarding the choice of preference elicitation method. Ordinal methods such as discrete choice experiment and best-worst scaling appear to be preferable for use in this population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信