Health utility estimation in children and adolescents: a review of health technology assessments

References

• European Medicines Agency (EMA). Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products [Internet]. 2005. [cited 2015 Feb 12]. Available at: http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/emea-hrql-guidance.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II138–II150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D. A utility approach to the assessment of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II151–II154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolowacz SE, Briggs A, Belozeroff V, et al. Estimating health-state utility for economic models in clinical studies: an ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2016;19(6):704–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon J, Kim SW, Ungar WJ, et al. Patterns, trends and methodological associations in the measurement and valuation of childhood health utilities. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(7):1705–1724.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittenberg E, Prosser L. Measuring family spillover effects of illness. PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37(4):447–625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics. 2005;115(5):e600–e614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adlard N, Kinghorn P, Frew E. Is the UK NICE “Reference Case” influencing the practice of pediatric quality-adjusted life-year measurement within economic evaluations? Value Health. 2014;17(4):454–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorrington D, Eames K. Measuring health utilities in children and adolescents: a systematic review of the literature. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0135672.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolstenholme JL, Bargo D, Wang K, et al. Preference-based measures to obtain health state utility values for use in economic evaluations with child-based populations: a review and UK-based focus group assessment of patient and parent choices. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(7):1769–1780.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada [Internet]. 2017. [cited 2019 Mar 5]. Available at: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines_for_the_economic_evaluation_of_health_technologies_canada_4th_ed.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). Guidance to manufacturers for completion of new product assessment form [Internet]. 2018. [cited 2019 Feb 13]. Available at: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/Submission_Process/Submission_guidance_and_forms/Templates-Guidance-for-Submission
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to methods of technology appraisal [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2014 Jul 24]. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/article/PMG9/chapter/Foreword
   Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Longworth L. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 8: an introduction to the measurement and valuation of health for NICE submissions [Internet]. 2011. [cited 2019 Mar 3]. Available at: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk
   Google Scholar
• Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). A methodological guide: choices in methods for economic evaluations [Internet]. 2012. [cited 2019 Feb 13]. Available at: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/choices_in_methods_for_economic_evaluation.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Recombinant human growth hormone for the treatment of growth disorders in children: a systematic review and economic evaluation. TA188 [Internet]. 2009. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta188/documents/assessment-group-report-recombinant-human-growth-hormone-for-the-treatment-of-growth-disorders-in-children-a-systematic-review-and-economic-evaluation2
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Peginterferon alfa and ribavirin for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in children and young people. TA300 [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta300/documents/hepatitis-c-children-and-young-people-peginterferon-alfa-and-ribavirin-evaluation-report4
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for treating severe, chronic plaque psoriasis in children and young people [ID854]. TA455 [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta455/documents/committee-papers
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in children and adolescents (review of technology appraisal guidance 99) [ID346]. TA482 [Internet]. 2015. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta482/documents/committee-papers
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). Montelukast 4 mg and 5 mg chewable tablets and 4 mg granules (Singulair Pediatric®). SMC No. 383/07 [Internet]. 2007. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/3273/teduglutide-revestive-final-jan-2018-revised-060318-for-website.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). Infliximab 100 mg powder for concentrate for solution for infusion. (Remicade®). SMC No. (854/13) [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/1842/infliximab_remicade_final_february_2013_for_website.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Aripiprazole for the treatment of schizophrenia in adolescents (aged 15-17 years). Evidence Review Group Report commissioned by the NHS R&D HTA Programme. On behalf of NICE. TA213 [Internet]. 2010. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta213/documents/schizophrenia-aripiprazole-evidence-review-group-report2
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic episodes in bipolar disorder in children and adolescents. TA292 [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta292/documents/bipolar-disorder-children-aripirazole-evaluation-report2
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The clinical and cost-effectiveness of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Technology Assessment Report commissioned by the NIHR HTA Programme on behalf of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. TA373 [Internet]. 2015. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta373/documents/committee-papers
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). Tocofersolan 50 mg/mL (corresponding to 74.5 IU tocopherol) oral solution. (Vedrop®). Re-submission. SMC No. (696/11) [Internet]. 2012. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/2415/tocofersolan_vedrop.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). Teduglutide 5 mg and 1.25 mg vials of powder and solvent for solution for injection. (Revestive®). SMC No 1139/16 [Internet]. 2018. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/3273/teduglutide-revestive-final-jan-2018-revised-060318-for-website.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus for atopic eczema. TA82 [Internet]. 2006. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta82/documents/ta82-atopic-dermatitis-eczema-pimecrolimus-and-tacrolimus-hta-report-2
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model. TA166 [Internet]. 2007. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta166/documents/hearing-impairment-cochlear-implants-assessment-report2
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. TA278 [Internet]. 2012. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta278/documents/asthma-severe-persistent-patients-aged-6-adults-omalizumab-rev-ta133-ta201-assessment-report2
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Pegaspargase for treating acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Committee papers. TA408 [Internet]. 2016. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta408/documents/committee-papers
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: economic and health service impact analyses [Internet]. 2008. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/H0298b_IVIG_ITP_tr_e.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Mifamurtide for osteosarcoma. TA235 [Internet]. 2009. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta235/documents/osteosarcoma-mifamurtide-original-erg-report-january-2009-2
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Colistimethate sodium powder and tobramycin powder: for inhalation for the treatment of pseudomonas lung infection in cystic fibrosis [ID342]. TA276 [Internet]. 2012. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta276/documents/cystic-fibrosis-pseudomonas-lung-infection-colistimethate-sodium-and-tobramycin-id342-assessment-report2
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Urticaria (chronic spontaneous, previously treated)—omalizumab: evaluation report and supporting information [ID707]. TA339 [Internet]. 2014. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta339/documents/urticaria-chronic-spontaneous-previously-treated-omalizumab-id707-evaluation-report-and-supporting-information2
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). Deferasirox 125 mg, 250 mg, 500 mg dispersible tablets. (Exjade®). SMC No. (347/07) [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/1540/deferasirox_exjade_resub_final_dec_2016_for_website.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). Thiotepa 15 mg and 100 mg powder for concentrate for solution for infusion. (Tepadina®). SMC No. (790/12) [Internet]. 2012. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/2389/thiotepa_tepadina_final_june_2012_for_website.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Khan KA, Petrou S, Rivero-Arias O, et al. Mapping EQ-5D utility scores from the PedsQL™ Generic Core Scales. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(7):693–706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton GR, Stacey PC, Fortnum HM, et al. Hearing-impaired children in the United Kingdom, IV: cost-effectiveness of pediatric cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2006;27(5):575–588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd A, Price D, Brown R. The impact of asthma exacerbations on health-related quality of life in moderate to severe asthma patients in the UK. Prim Care Respir J. 2007;16(1):22–27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prince FH, de Bekker-Grob EW, Twilt M, et al. An analysis of the costs and treatment success of etanercept in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from the Dutch Arthritis and Biologicals in Children register. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50(6):1131–1136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal [Internet]. 2008. [cited 2018 Jul 11]. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stevens KJ, Brazier JE, McKenna SP, et al. The development of a preference-based measure of health in children with atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2005;153(2):372–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ara R, Brazier JE. Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. Value Health. 2010;13(5):509–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK population norms for EQ-5D. CHE Discussion Papers 1999;172.
   Google Scholar
• Sproston K, Primatesta P. Health survey for England 2003: cardiovascular disease. Volume 1: cardiovascular disease [Internet]. 2004. [cited 2018 Sep 12]. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121206162028/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4098910.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Briggs A, Wild D, Lees M, et al. Impact of schizophrenia and schizophrenia treatment-related adverse events on quality of life: direct utility elicitation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6(1):105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moodie M, Richardson J, Rankin B, et al. Predicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four Pacific countries using the Assessment of Quality-of-Life (AQoL-6D) instrument. Value Health. 2010;13(8):1014–1027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assessment of Quality of Life. Using the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) version 1 [Internet]. 2009. [cited 2019 Apr 15]. Available at: https://www.aqol.com.au/documents/copy-tech-report-12.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Assessment of Quality of Life. AQoL-6D [Internet]. 2014. [cited 2017 Mar 20]. Available at: http://www.aqol.com.au/index.php/aqolinstruments?id=56
   Google Scholar
• Richardson J, Atherton Day N, Peacock S, et al. Measurement of the quality of life for economic evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 instrument. Aust Econ Rev. 2004;37(1):62–88.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens K. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1105–1113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens K. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based generic paediatric health related quality of life measure. Qual Health Res. 2010;20(3):340–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens K, Ratcliffe J. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation in adolescence: an assessment of the practicality and validity of the child health utility 9D in the Australian adolescent population. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1092–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowen D, Mulhern B, Stevens K, et al. Estimating a Dutch value set for the pediatric preference-based CHU9D using a discrete choice experiment with duration. Value Health. 2018;21(10):1234–1242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Health Utilities Inc. Multi-attribute health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) [Internet]. 2005. [cited 2017 Mar 20]. Available at: http://healthutilities.biz/
   Google Scholar
• Saigal S, Rosenbaum P, Stoskopf B, et al. Development, reliability and validity of a new measure of overall health for pre-school children. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(1):243–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemke RJ, Bonsel GJ. Reliability and validity of a comprehensive health status measure in a heterogeneous population of children admitted to intensive care. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(3):327–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones S, Rantell K, Stevens K, et al. United Kingdom Pediatric Intensive Care Outcome Study Group. Outcome at 6 months after admission for pediatric intensive care: a report of a national study of pediatric intensive care units in the United kingdom. Pediatrics. 2006;118(5):2101–2108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apajasalo M, Rautonen J, Holmberg C, et al. Quality of life in pre-adolescence: a seventeen-dimensional health-related measure (17D). Qual Life Res. 1996;5(6):532–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apajasalo M, Sintonen H, Holmberg C, et al. Quality of life in early adolescence: a sixteen-dimensional health-related measure (16D). Qual Life Res. 1996;5(2):205–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 15D Instrument. 15D [Internet]. 2017. [cited 2017 Mar 20]. Available at: http://www.15d-instrument.net/15d/
   Google Scholar
• Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, et al. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):887–897.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks RG. EuroQol Working Paper Series. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EuroQol Group. EQ-5D-3L user guide, version 5.1 [Internet]. 2015. [cited 2019 Apr 11]. Available at: https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/EQ-5D-3L_UserGuide_2015.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EuroQol Group [Internet]. [cited 2017 Mar 16]. Available at: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/
   Google Scholar
• Augustovski F, Rey-Ares L, Irazola V, et al. An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(2):323–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golicki D, Niewada M. EQ-5D-5L Polish population norms. AOMS. 2017;1:191–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramos Goñi JM, Cabasés Hita JM, Errea Rodríguez M, et al. EQ-5D-5L valuation project for the Spanish population: a descriptive overview and preliminary results. Estado del Bienestar: Sostenibilidad y Reformas [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2018 Sep 10]. Available at: https://idus.us.es/xmlui/handle/11441/30435
   Google Scholar
• Verstraete J, Ramma L, Jelsma J. Influence of the child’s perceived general health on the primary caregiver’s health status. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambe T, Frew E, Ives NJ, et al. PREDNOS Trial Team. Mapping the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™) Generic Core Scales onto the Child Health Utility Index-9 Dimension (CHU-9D) score for economic evaluation in children. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(4):451–465.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mpundu-Kaambwa C, Chen G, Russo R, et al. Mapping CHU9D Utility Scores from the PedsQL™ 4.0 SF-15. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(4):453–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busija L, Pausenberger E, Haines TP, et al. Adult measures of general health and health-related quality of life: Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-item (SF-36) and Short Form 12-item (SF-12) health surveys, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 6D (SF-6D), Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), Quality of Well Being scale (QWB), and Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(S11):S383–S412.
   Google Scholar
• Quality of Well Being Self-Administered (QWB-SA) Scale. User’s manual [Internet]. San Diego: Health Services Research Center, University of California. 2008. [cited 2017 Mar 28]. Available at: https://hoap.ucsd.edu/qwb-info/QWB-Manual.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care. 1992;30(6):473–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam CL, Brazier J, McGhee SM. Valuation of the SF-6D health states is feasible, acceptable, reliable, and valid in a Chinese population. Value Health. 2008;11(2):295–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Fukuhara S, Roberts J, et al. Estimating a preference-based index from the Japanese SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(12):1323–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN, et al. A Portuguese value set for the SF-6D. Value Health. 2010;13(5):624–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abellán Perpiñán JM, Sánchez Martínez FI, Martínez Pérez JE, et al. Lowering the ‘floor’ of the SF-6D scoring algorithm using a lottery equivalent method. Health Econ. 2012;21(11):1271–1285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• University of Sheffield. Valuation surveys in other countries [Internet]. 2017. [cited 2017 Mar 31]. Available at: https://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/mvh/sf-6d/faqs
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). A review of the methods used to estimate and model utility values in nice technology appraisals for paediatric populations [Internet]. 2019. [cited 2019 Aug 8]. Available at: http://nicedsu.org.uk/utility-values-in-children/
   Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2017 Mar 21]. Available at: https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/content/information/files/pbac-guidelines-version-5.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Zorginstituut Nederland (ZiN). Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2019 Feb 13]. Available at: https://english.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publications/reports/2016/06/16/guideline-for-economic-evaluations-in-healthcare
   Google Scholar
• Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV). General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFNAR 2003:2) [Internet]. 2003. [cited 2019 May 7]. Available at: https://www.tlv.se/download/18.467926b615d084471ac3396a/1510316400272/LAG-lfnar-2003-2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian Medicines Agency (NoMA). Guidelines for the submission of documentation for single technology assessment (STA) of pharmaceuticals on how to conduct pharmacoeconomic analyses [Internet]. 2018. [cited 2019 Feb 13]. Available at: https://legemiddelverket.no/Documents/English/Public%20funding%20and%20pricing/Documentation%20for%20STA/Guidelines%20151018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wittenberg E, Prosser LA. Disutility of illness for caregivers and families: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(6):489–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. QALYs and carers. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(12):1015–1023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoefman R, Al-Janabi H, McCaffrey N, et al. Measuring caregiver outcomes in palliative care: a construct validation study of two instruments for use in economic evaluations. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(5):1255–1273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–1103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Janabi H, Manca A, Coast J. Predicting carer health effects for use in economic evaluation. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0184886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prosser LA, Wittenberg E. Advances in methods and novel applications for measuring family spillover effects of illness. PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37(4):447–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Modelling carer health-related quality of life in Nice technology appraisals and highly specialised technologies [Internet]. [cited 2020 Apr 13]. Available at: http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-04-03-NICE-carer-HRQL-v-2-0-clean.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Rowen D. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 11: alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values [Internet]. 2011. [cited 2017 Mar 16]. Available at: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J. Extending the QALY: selecting and testing the proposed items and domains from a new generic measure – results from validation interviews with patients, social care users and carers. Paper presentation, 35th EuroQol Group Scientific Plenary Meeting, Lisbon, Portugal, September 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Carlton J, Connell J, Peasgood T, et al. Extending the QALY: developing and testing the proposed items for a new generic measure – results from qualitative review and face validity with patients, social care users and carers. Poster Presentation, International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) 25th Annual Conference, Dublin, Ireland, October 2018.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Interim Process and Methods of the Highly Specialised Technologies Programme [Internet]. 2017. [cited 2020 Apr 2]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-highly-specialised-technologies-guidance/HST-interim-methods-process-guide-may-17.pdf
   Google Scholar