在经济评估中评估年轻人口的福祉:多维工具的范围审查。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Zhirui Guo, Diana Marcela Nova Diaz, Stefan A Lipman, Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen
{"title":"在经济评估中评估年轻人口的福祉:多维工具的范围审查。","authors":"Zhirui Guo, Diana Marcela Nova Diaz, Stefan A Lipman, Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen","doi":"10.1186/s12955-025-02418-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To comprehensively evaluate health care interventions in younger populations, outcome measurement in economic evaluation may need to be expanded beyond health-related quality of life to include well-being. However, whether appropriate well-being instruments exist for children remains uncertain. This study provides a systematic overview of multidimensional well-being instruments for children and assesses their potential applicability for economic evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review was reported following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search strategy included terms related to \"well-being,\" \"child or adolescent,\" and \"instrument\", and was implemented in four electronic databases, yielding a total of 9622 articles. Two reviewers independently screened articles with ASReview, a machine-learning-based tool for expediting screening, and manually extracted information from relevant articles. Findings were synthesized narratively, highlighting consistency and discrepancies, as well as potential suitability for economic evaluation (using multiple criteria).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twentyfive studies were included, published between 1993 and 2024. On average, instruments assessed well-being with five dimensions and 38 questions. Common dimensions included physical, health, school, satisfaction, relationship(s), emotional and self. Dimensions that capture children's daily experiences, such as family, achievement, education and after-school activities were frequently considered.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The review highlights the variety of well-being instruments for children. Although many instruments measure well-being comprehensively, only ICECAP-CYP fit all criteria for suitability for economic evaluation. The small number of potentially suitable instruments highlights a growing yet still insufficient interest in moving beyond traditional HRQoL assessments in younger populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":12980,"journal":{"name":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","volume":"23 1","pages":"86"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12465456/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing well-being in younger populations in economic evaluations: a scoping review of multidimensional instruments.\",\"authors\":\"Zhirui Guo, Diana Marcela Nova Diaz, Stefan A Lipman, Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12955-025-02418-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To comprehensively evaluate health care interventions in younger populations, outcome measurement in economic evaluation may need to be expanded beyond health-related quality of life to include well-being. However, whether appropriate well-being instruments exist for children remains uncertain. This study provides a systematic overview of multidimensional well-being instruments for children and assesses their potential applicability for economic evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review was reported following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search strategy included terms related to \\\"well-being,\\\" \\\"child or adolescent,\\\" and \\\"instrument\\\", and was implemented in four electronic databases, yielding a total of 9622 articles. Two reviewers independently screened articles with ASReview, a machine-learning-based tool for expediting screening, and manually extracted information from relevant articles. Findings were synthesized narratively, highlighting consistency and discrepancies, as well as potential suitability for economic evaluation (using multiple criteria).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twentyfive studies were included, published between 1993 and 2024. On average, instruments assessed well-being with five dimensions and 38 questions. Common dimensions included physical, health, school, satisfaction, relationship(s), emotional and self. Dimensions that capture children's daily experiences, such as family, achievement, education and after-school activities were frequently considered.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The review highlights the variety of well-being instruments for children. Although many instruments measure well-being comprehensively, only ICECAP-CYP fit all criteria for suitability for economic evaluation. The small number of potentially suitable instruments highlights a growing yet still insufficient interest in moving beyond traditional HRQoL assessments in younger populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12980,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"86\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12465456/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-025-02418-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-025-02418-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:为了全面评估年轻人群的卫生保健干预措施,经济评估中的结果测量可能需要扩展到健康相关的生活质量之外,以包括福祉。然而,是否存在适合儿童的福利工具仍不确定。本研究对儿童多维福祉工具进行了系统概述,并评估了它们在经济评估中的潜在适用性。方法:本综述遵循PRISMA-ScR指南进行报道。搜索策略包括与“福利”、“儿童或青少年”和“工具”有关的词,并在四个电子数据库中执行,共产生9622篇文章。两名审稿人使用ASReview(一种基于机器学习的加速筛选工具)独立筛选文章,并手动从相关文章中提取信息。研究结果以叙述的方式综合,突出一致性和差异,以及经济评估的潜在适用性(使用多种标准)。结果:纳入了25项研究,发表于1993年至2024年之间。平均而言,评估幸福感的工具包括5个维度和38个问题。常见的维度包括身体、健康、学校、满意度、关系、情感和自我。那些反映儿童日常经历的维度,如家庭、成就、教育和课后活动,经常被考虑在内。结论:本综述强调了儿童福利工具的多样性。虽然许多工具全面衡量福祉,但只有ICECAP-CYP符合经济评估适用性的所有标准。可能合适的工具数量较少,这突显出人们对在年轻人群中超越传统的HRQoL评估的兴趣日益增加,但仍然不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessing well-being in younger populations in economic evaluations: a scoping review of multidimensional instruments.

Assessing well-being in younger populations in economic evaluations: a scoping review of multidimensional instruments.

Assessing well-being in younger populations in economic evaluations: a scoping review of multidimensional instruments.

Assessing well-being in younger populations in economic evaluations: a scoping review of multidimensional instruments.

Background: To comprehensively evaluate health care interventions in younger populations, outcome measurement in economic evaluation may need to be expanded beyond health-related quality of life to include well-being. However, whether appropriate well-being instruments exist for children remains uncertain. This study provides a systematic overview of multidimensional well-being instruments for children and assesses their potential applicability for economic evaluation.

Methods: This scoping review was reported following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search strategy included terms related to "well-being," "child or adolescent," and "instrument", and was implemented in four electronic databases, yielding a total of 9622 articles. Two reviewers independently screened articles with ASReview, a machine-learning-based tool for expediting screening, and manually extracted information from relevant articles. Findings were synthesized narratively, highlighting consistency and discrepancies, as well as potential suitability for economic evaluation (using multiple criteria).

Results: Twentyfive studies were included, published between 1993 and 2024. On average, instruments assessed well-being with five dimensions and 38 questions. Common dimensions included physical, health, school, satisfaction, relationship(s), emotional and self. Dimensions that capture children's daily experiences, such as family, achievement, education and after-school activities were frequently considered.

Conclusion: The review highlights the variety of well-being instruments for children. Although many instruments measure well-being comprehensively, only ICECAP-CYP fit all criteria for suitability for economic evaluation. The small number of potentially suitable instruments highlights a growing yet still insufficient interest in moving beyond traditional HRQoL assessments in younger populations.

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
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.80%
发文量
154
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes is an open access, peer-reviewed, journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes considers original manuscripts on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) assessment for evaluation of medical and psychosocial interventions. It also considers approaches and studies on psychometric properties of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures, including cultural validation of instruments if they provide information about the impact of interventions. The journal publishes study protocols and reviews summarising the present state of knowledge concerning a particular aspect of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures. Reviews should generally follow systematic review methodology. Comments on articles and letters to the editor are welcome.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信