Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utility Values for the CP-6D, a Cerebral Palsy-Specific Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument, Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Objective

The CP-6D is a new preference-based measure derived from the CPQOL, a cerebral palsy-specific quality-of-life questionnaire. The CP-6D contains six dimensions, each with five levels. A preference-based value set is required to score the CP-6D on a utility scale and render it suitable for cost-utility analysis. This study aims to estimate the utility value set for the CP-6D for interventions for people with cerebral palsy (CP).

Methods

A discrete choice experiment was designed and administrated to an adult Australian online panel. Each respondent answered 12 choice sets. Each choice was presented as a combination of the health state from the CP-6D and duration spent in that health state before death. Conditional logit and mixed logit regression were used to analyse the data. The utility values were estimated as a ratio of the coefficient of each dimension to the coefficient of the duration.

Results

A total of 2002 participants completed the survey and responded to each choice. Generally, the dimension levels were monotonic, meaning the coefficients reflected the ordered nature of the levels in each dimension. The dimensions relating to manual ability, social well-being and acceptance had the greatest effect on choice. The value of the worst ‘pits’ health state is − 0.582.

Conclusion

This study provides the first CP-specific utility value set that can potentially be used in cost-utility analyses of interventions for people with CP where the CPQOL has been applied, both prospectively and retrospectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nord E. Health state values from multiattribute utility instruments need correction. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):371–4. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002091.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brazier J, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Yang Y, et al. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2012;16(32):1–114. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16320.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Torrance GW, Keresteci MA, Casey RW, Rosner AJ, Ryan N, Breton MC. Development and initial validation of a new preference-based disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for erectile function. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(2):349–59. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000018482.71580.f2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dowie J. Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. Health Econ. 2002;11(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.667.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stolk EA, Busschbach JJ. Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(4):363–71. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023453405252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brazier JE, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Yang Y, et al. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(32):1–114. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16320.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mulhern B, Norman R, Street DJ, Viney R. One method, many methodological choices: a structured review of discrete-choice experiments for health state valuation. PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37(1):29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0714-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bahrampour M, Byrnes J, Norman R, Scuffham PA, Downes M. Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods. Eur J Health Econ. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01189-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mangham LJ, Hanson K, McPake B. How to do (or not to do) … designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan. 2008;24(2):151–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czn047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, Burgess L, Cronin P, King M, et al. Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(6):773–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13503499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31(1):306–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.11.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12:S5–S9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00515.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Reddihough D. Cerebral palsy in childhood. Aust Fam Physician. 2011;40(4):192–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenbaum P, Paneth N, Leviton A, Goldstein M, Bax M, Damiano D, et al. A report: the definition and classification of cerebral palsy April 2006. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl. 2007;109(suppl 109):8–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Reddihough DS, Collins KJ. The epidemiology and causes of cerebral palsy. Austral J Physiother. 2003;49(1):7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nelson KB. Causative factors in cerebral palsy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;51(4):749–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cerebral Palsy Australia. The economic impact of cerebral palsy in Australia in 2007. Access Economics Pty Ltd; 2008. p. 74.

  18. Davis E, Shelly A, Waters E, Davern M. Measuring the quality of life of children with cerebral palsy: comparing the conceptual differences and psychometric properties of three instruments. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010;52(2):174–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bahrampour M, Downes M, Boyd RN, Scuffham PA, Byrnes J. Using Rasch and factor analysis to develop a Proxy-Reported health state classification (descriptive) system for Cerebral Palsy. Disabil Rehabil. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1709565.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mpundu-Kaambwa C, Chen G, Huynh E, Russo R, Ratcliffe J. A review of preference-based measures for the assessment of quality of life in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Qual Life Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1837-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5(2):141–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199603)5:2<141:Aid-hec189>3.0.Co;2-n.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2013;11(3):287–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0035-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, Cronin P, King MT, Ratcliffe J, et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health states. Health Econ. 2014;23(6):729–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2953.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. King MT, Viney R, Simon Pickard A, Rowen D, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, et al. Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(2):225–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kuha J. AIC and BIC: comparisons of assumptions and performance. Sociol Methods Res. 2004;33(2):188–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124103262065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics, Academic Press. 1973. p. 105–42.

  27. Norman R, Viney R, Aaronson N, Brazier J, Cella D, Costa D, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):637–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bleichrodt H, Wakker P, Johannesson M. Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. J Risk Uncertain. 1997;15(2):107–14. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007726117003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gu Y, Norman R, Viney R. Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments—a Qaly space model approach. Health Econ. 2014;23(9):1098–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3066.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2009.

  31. Commonwealth of Australia. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submission to the pharmaceuticals benefits advisory committee: including submission involving economic analysis. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Office; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Walter S, Russell D, Wood E, Galuppi B. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1997;39(4):214–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1997.tb07414.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Eliasson AC, Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Rosblad B, Beckung E, Arner M, Ohrvall AM, et al. The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy: scale development and evidence of validity and reliability. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48(7):549–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012162206001162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hidecker MJC, Paneth N, Rosenbaum PL, Kent RD, Lillie J, Eulenberg JB, et al. Developing and validating the Communication Function Classification System for individuals with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53(8):704–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.03996.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Shah KK, Mulhern B, Longworth L, Janssen MF. Views of the UK general public on important aspects of health not captured by EQ-5D. Patient. 2017;10(6):701–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0240-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr RD. The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):375–84. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002092.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Medvedev ON, Landhuis CE. Exploring constructs of well-being, happiness and quality of life. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4903-e. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Blanchflower DG, Oswald AJ. Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. J Public Econ. 2004;88(7–8):1359–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schünemann J, Strulik H, Trimborn T. Going from bad to worse: adaptation to poor health spending, longevity, and the value of life. J Econ Behav Organ. 2017;140:130–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.02.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, King M, Street D, Ratcliffe J. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1194–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00581.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fedrizzi E, Pagliano E, Andreucci E, Oleari G. Hand function in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: prospective follow-up and functional outcome in adolescence. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2003;45(2):85–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cerebral Palsy: hope through research. NIH Publication Office of Communications and Public Liaison, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health. 2013.

  43. Newman CJ, O'Regan M, Hensey O. Sleep disorders in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48(7):564–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2006.tb01316.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15(8):797–811. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lim S, Jonker MF, Oppe M, Donkers B, Stolk E. Severity-stratified discrete choice experiment designs for health state evaluations. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(11):1377–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0694-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Helgesson G, Ernstsson O, Åström M, Burström K. Whom should we ask? A systematic literature review of the arguments regarding the most accurate source of information for valuation of health states. Qual Life Res. 2020:1–18.

  47. Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN, Rowen D, Brazier JE. Exploring the consistency of the SF-6D. Value Health. 2013;16(6):1023–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Dr. Megan Cross for her assistance in proof-reading this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia

    Mina Bahrampour, Joshua Byrnes, Martin Downes & Paul A. Scuffham

  2. School of Public Health, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia

    Richard Norman

Authors
  1. Mina Bahrampour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Norman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joshua Byrnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Downes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul A. Scuffham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mina Bahrampour.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Professor Scuffham was part-funded by an NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (1136923).

Conflict of interest

All authors have no conflict of interest in relation to material reported in the article.

Ethical approval

The ethics of this study, ethical approval was given by Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 2018/930).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study might be available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because they contain information that could compromise research participant privacy/consent.

Author contributions

MB, RN, JB, MD and PS conceived the study and contributed to the design of the study; MB wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors read, contributed and approved the manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bahrampour, M., Norman, R., Byrnes, J. et al. Utility Values for the CP-6D, a Cerebral Palsy-Specific Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument, Using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Patient 14, 129–138 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00468-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00468-x

Search

Navigation