Psychometric Performance of the EQ Health and Wellbeing Short in a United Kingdom Population Sample.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the psychometric performance and construct validity of the EQ Health and Wellbeing Short (EQ-HWB-S), using a validated measure, the EQ-5D-5L, as a comparator. METHODS: The experimental version of the EQ-HWB-S was compared with the EQ-5D-5L to assess the psychometric performance of the measures. Data were drawn from the valuation stages of the Extending the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year project (UK general population, n = 429) and the EQ-5D-5L UK valuation pilot study (UK general population, n = 248). Construct validity was assessed based on convergent validity, using Spearman correlations and Pearson correlations. Known-group validity was assessed by estimating effect sizes to assess the ability of the EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L to discriminate between known groups based on "healthy" status, presence of a long-term condition, health and life satisfaction, age, and employment status. The degree of agreement in utility values across instruments was also evaluated using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Strong associations (rs ≥ 0.5, P < .001) were found between conceptually overlapping dimensions and the utility scores of the EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L. The instruments performed comparably in discriminating between known groups including healthy versus unhealthy groups (based on the visual analog scale ≥ 80), long-term condition (vs no long-term condition), and above versus below average health and life satisfaction and employed (vs unemployed and long-term sick). CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-HWB-S performs favorably with utility values successfully discriminating between groups in which differences are expected. Convergence between the EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L is evident, especially between conceptually overlapping dimensions.

Scoring the EQ-HWB-S: can we do it without value sets? A non-parametric item response theory analysis.

BACKGROUND: Only one pilot value set (UK) is currently available for the EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument short version (EQ-HWB-S). As an alternative to preference-weighted scoring, we examined whether a level summary score (LSS) is appropriate for the EQ-HWB-S using Mokken scaling analyses. METHODS: Data from patients, carers and the general population collected during the developmental phase of the EQ-HWB-S in Australia, US and UK were used, noting 3 of 9 items have since undergone revision. EQ-HWB-S data fit was examined using R package Mokken scaling's monotone homogeneity model, utilizing the automated item selection procedure (AISP) as well as Loevinger's scaling coefficients for items and the scale (HS). Manifest monotonicity was assessed by examining whether the cumulative probability for responses at or above each response level did not decrease across the summary score. RESULTS: EQ-HWB-S data were available for 3340 respondents: US = 903, Australia = 514 and UK = 1923. Mean age was 50 ± 18 and 1841 (55%) were female. AISP placed all 9 items of the EQ-HWB-S on a single scale when the lower bound was set to < 0.448. Strong scalability (HS = 0.561) was found for the EQ-HWB-S as a single scale. Stronger scales were formed by separating the psychosocial items (n = 6, HS = 0.683) and physical sensation items (n = 3, HS = 0.713). No violations of monotonicity were found except for the items mobility and daily activities for the subgroups with long-term conditions and UK subjects, respectively. DISCUSSION: As EQ-HWB-S items formed a strong scale and subscales based on Mokken analysis, LSS is a promising weighting-free approach to scoring.

Valuing the EQ Health and Wellbeing Short Using Time Trade-Off and a Discrete Choice Experiment: A Feasibility Study.

OBJECTIVES: The EQ Health and Wellbeing Short (EQ-HWB-S) is a new generic measure that covers health and wellbeing developed for use in economic evaluation in health and social care. The aim was to test the feasibility of using composite time trade-off (cTTO) and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) based on an international protocol to derive utilities for the EQ-HWB-S and to generate a pilot value set. METHODS: A representative UK general population was recruited. Online videoconference interviews were undertaken where cTTO and DCE tasks were administered using EuroQol Portable Valuation Technology. Quality control (QC) was used to assess interviewers' performance. Data were modeled using Tobit, probit, and hybrid models. Feasibility was assessed based on the distribution of data, participants, and reports of understanding from the interviewer, QC and modeling results. RESULTS: cTTO and DCE data were available for 520 participants. Demographic characteristics were broadly representative of the UK general population. Interviewers met QC requirements. cTTO values ranged between -1 to 1 with increasing disutility associated with more severe states. Participants understood the tasks and the EQ-HWB-S states; and the interviewers reported high levels of understanding and engagement. The hybrid Tobit heteroscedastic model was selected for the pilot value set with values ranging from -0.384 to 1. Pain, mobility, daily activities, and sad/depressed had the largest disutilities, followed by loneliness, anxiety, exhaustion, control, and cognition in the selected model. CONCLUSIONS: EQ-HWB-S can be valued using cTTO and DCE. Further methodological work is recommended to develop a valuation protocol specific to the EQ-HWB-S.

Should We Consider Including a Value for "Hope" as an Additional Benefit Within Health Technology Assessment?

Health technology assessment (HTA) typically uses average health-related quality of life gain as its main measure of benefit used in economic evaluation. Nevertheless, there have been calls to consider novel aspects of benefit including the "value of hope," defined as a patients' potential preferences for a wider distribution of treatment benefit with a positive skew, in the hope that they will be one of the lucky ones. The value of hope may also derive from feeling hopeful as a positive mental state, which may be missing from current measures of health-related quality of life. The value attributed to feeling hopeful could be related to, or additional to, the value derived from possible risk-seeking preferences. Here, we reflect upon the strength of the case for the inclusion of the "value of hope" taking a critical look at the commonly referenced evidence for including the "value of hope" as risk-seeking preferences. We also draw attention to other conceptions of hope-as an emotion, a cognitive process, or a combination of both-and reflect upon the potential of including these broader notions of hope into HTA. The case for the inclusion of the "value of hope" based on risk-seeking preferences is weak. We suggest research questions that could give further evidence on whether hope is an important missing value from HTA.

Qualitative Review on Domains of Quality of Life Important for Patients, Social Care Users, and Informal Carers to Inform the Development of the EQ-HWB.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the themes to inform the content of a new generic measure, the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing), that can be used in economic evaluation across health, social care, and public health, based on the views of users and beneficiaries of these services including informal carers. METHODS: A qualitative review was undertaken. Systematic and citation searches were undertaken focusing on qualitative evidence of the impact on quality of life from reviews for selected health conditions, informal carers, social care users, and primary qualitative work used in the development of selected measures. A subset of studies was included in the review. Framework analysis and synthesis were undertaken based on a conceptual model. RESULTS: A total of 42 reviews and 24 primary studies were selected for inclusion in the review. Extraction and synthesis resulted in 7 high-level themes (with subthemes): (1) feelings and emotions (sadness, anxiety, hope, frustration, safety, guilt/shame); (2) cognition (concentration, memory, confusion, thinking clearly); (3) self-identity (dignity/respect, self-esteem); (4) "coping, autonomy, and control" relationships; (5) social connections (loneliness, social engagement, stigma, support, friendship, belonging, burden); (6) physical sensations (pain, discomfort, sleep, fatigue); and (7) activity (self-care, meaningful activities, mobility, communication, hearing, vision). Apart from physical sensations, most of the other themes and subthemes were relevant across both health and social care, including for informal carers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this broad review identified themes that go beyond health and that are relevant to patients, informal carers, and social care users. The themes and subthemes informed the domains for the EQ-HWB.

Generation, Selection, and Face Validation of Items for a New Generic Measure of Quality of Life: The EQ-HWB.

OBJECTIVES: This article aims to describe the generation and selection of items (stage 2) and face validation (stage 3) of a large international (multilingual) project to develop a new generic measure, the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing), for use in economic evaluation across health, social care, and public health to estimate quality-adjusted life-years. METHODS: Items from commonly used generic, carer, social care, and mental health quality of life measures were mapped onto domains or subdomains identified from a literature review. Potential terms and items were reviewed and refined to ensure coverage of the construct of the domains/subdomain (stage 2). Input on the potential item pool, response options, and recall period was sought from 3 key stakeholder groups. The pool of candidate items was tested in qualitative interviews with potential future users in an international face validation study (stage 3). RESULTS: Stage 2 resulted in the generation of 687 items. Predetermined selection criteria were applied by the research team resulting in 598 items being dropped, leaving 89 items that were reviewed by key stakeholder groups. Face validation (stage 3) tested 97 draft items and 4 response scales. A total of 47 items were retained and 14 were modified, whereas 3 were added to the candidate pool of items. This resulted in a 64-item set. CONCLUSIONS: This international multiculture, multilingual study with a common methodology identified many items that performed well across all countries. These were taken to the psychometric testing along with modified and new items for the EQ-HWB.

Developing a New Generic Health and Wellbeing Measure: Psychometric Survey Results for the EQ-HWB.

OBJECTIVES: The development of measures such as the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing) requires selection of items. This study explored the psychometric performance of candidate items, testing their validity in patients, social carer users, and carers. METHODS: Article and online surveys that included candidate items (N = 64) were conducted in Argentina, Australia, China, Germany, United Kingdom, and the United States. Psychometric assessment on missing data, response distributions, and known group differences was undertaken. Dimensionality was explored using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Poorly fitting items were identified using information functions, and the function of each response category was assessed using category characteristic curves from item response theory (IRT) models. Differential item functioning was tested across key subgroups. RESULTS: There were 4879 respondents (Argentina = 508, Australia = 514, China = 497, Germany = 502, United Kingdom = 1955, United States = 903). Where missing data were allowed, it was low (UK article survey 2.3%; US survey 0.6%). Most items had responses distributed across all levels. Most items could discriminate between groups with known health conditions with moderate to large effect sizes. Items were less able to discriminate across carers. Factor analysis found positive and negative measurement factors alongside the constructs of interest. For most of the countries apart from China, the confirmatory factor analysis model had good fit with some minor modifications. IRT indicated that most items had well-functioning response categories but there was some evidence of differential item functioning in many items. CONCLUSIONS: Items performed well in classical psychometric testing and IRT. This large 6-country collaboration provided evidence to inform item selection for the EQ-HWB measure.

The EQ-HWB: Overview of the Development of a Measure of Health and Wellbeing and Key Results.

OBJECTIVES: Existing measures for estimating quality-adjusted life-years are mostly limited to health-related quality of life. This article presents an overview of the development the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing), which is a measure that encompasses health and wellbeing. METHODS: Stages: (1) Establishing domains through reviews of the qualitative literature informed by a conceptual framework. (2) Generation and selection of items to cover the domains. (3) Face validation of these items through qualitative interviews with 168 patients, social care users, general population, and carers across 6 countries (Argentina, Australia, China, Germany, United Kingdom, United States). (4) Extensive psychometric testing of candidate items (using classical, factor analysis, and item response theory methods) on > 4000 respondents in the 6 countries. Stakeholders were consulted throughout. RESULTS: A total of 32 subdomains grouped into 7 high-level domains were identified from the qualitative literature and 97 items generated to cover them. Face validation eliminated 36 items, modified 14, and added 3. Psychometric testing of 64 items found little difference in missing data or problems with response distribution, the conceptual model was confirmed except in China, and most items performed well in the item response theory in all countries. Evidence was presented to stakeholders in 2 rounds of consultation to inform the final selection of items for the EQ-HWB (25-item) and the short version of EQ-HWB (9-items). CONCLUSIONS: EQ-HWB measures have been developed internationally for evaluating interventions in health, public health, and social care including the impact on patients, social care users, and carers.

The role of response domain and scale label in the quantitative interpretation of patient-reported outcome measure response options.

PURPOSE: Uncertainties exist in how respondents interpret response options in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), particularly across different domains and for different scale labels. The current study assessed how respondents quantitatively interpret common response options. METHODS: Members of the general public were recruited to this study via an online panel, stratified by age, gender, and having English as a first language. Participants completed background questions and were randomised to answer questions on one of three domains (i.e. loneliness (negatively phrased), happiness or activities (positively phrased)). Participants were asked to provide quantitative interpretations of response options (e.g. how many times per week is equal to "often") and to order several common response options (e.g. occasionally, sometimes) on a 0-100 slider scale. Chi-squared tests and regression analyses were used to assess whether response options were interpreted consistently across domains and respondent characteristics. RESULTS: Data from 1377 participants were analysed. There was general consistency in quantifying the number of times over the last 7 days to which each response option referred. Response options were consistently assigned a lower value in the loneliness than happiness and activities domains. Individual differences, such as age and English as a second language, explained some significant variation in responses, but less than domain. CONCLUSION: Members of the public quantify common response options in a similar way, but their quantification is not equivalent across domains or every type of respondent. Recommendations for the use of certain scale labels over others in PROM development are provided.

Criteria for item selection for a preference-based measure for use in economic evaluation.

Preference-based measures allow patients to report their level of health, and the responses are then scored using preference weights from a representative general population sample for use in cost utility analysis. The development process of new preference-based measures should ensure that valid items are selected to reflect the constructs of interest included in the measure and that are suitable for use in preference-elicitation exercises. Existing criteria on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) development were reviewed, and additional considerations were taken into account in order to generate criteria to support development of new preference-based measures. Criteria covering 22 different aspects related to item selection for preference-based measures are presented. These include criteria related to how items are phrased to ensure accurate completion, the coverage of items in terms of range of domains as well as focus on current outcomes and whether items are suitable for valuation. The criteria are aimed at supporting the development of new preference-based measures with discussion to ensure that even where there is conflict between criteria, issues have been considered at the item selection stage. This would minimize problems at valuation stage by harmonizing established criteria and expanding lists to reflect the unique characteristics of preference-based measures.

Rethinking ADHD intervention trials: feasibility testing of two treatments and a methodology.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a lifelong condition associated with considerable costs. The long-term effectiveness and acceptability of treatments to improve outcomes remains in doubt. Long-term trials are needed comparing interventions with standard care and each other. The Sheffield Treatments for ADHD Research (STAR) project used the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) approach. A cohort of children with ADHD was recruited and outcomes collected from carers and teachers. A random selection was offered treatment by homoeopaths (hom) or nutritional therapists (NT). Their outcomes (Conners Global ADHD Index) were compared with those not offered interventions. The feasibility of the methods and interventions was assessed. The TwiCs approach was feasible with modifications. 144 participants were recruited to the cohort, 83 offered treatment, 72 accepted, and 50 attended 1+ appointments. Results according to carers assessments at 6 months were as follows: t = 1.08, p = .28 (- 1.48, 4.81) SMD .425 (hom); t = 1.71, p = .09 (- .347, 5.89), SMD = .388 (NT). Teachers' responses were too few and unstable. No serious treatment adverse events occurred.Conclusion: the STAR project demonstrated the feasibility of the TwiCs approach for testing interventions for children with ADHD. What is Known: • Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a lifelong condition associated with considerable costs to ADHD stakeholders. Children are at risk of negative outcomes and in need of pre-emptive strategies • The long-term effectiveness and acceptability of recommended treatments to improve outcomes remains in doubt What is New: • A small-scale test of the design demonstrated that the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) approach is feasible and can make a useful contribution regarding testing the effectiveness of interventions for children with ADHD to improve long-term negative outcomes • Treatment by homoeopaths and nutritional therapists may offer novel opportunities to improve outcomes.

The impact of ADHD on the health and well-being of ADHD children and their siblings.

Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been associated with reduced health and well-being of patients and their families. The authors undertook a large UK survey-based observational study of the burden associated with childhood ADHD. The impact of ADHD on both the patient (N = 476) and their siblings (N = 337) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and happiness was quantified using multiple standard measures [e.g. child health utility-9D (CHU-9D), EuroQol-5D-Youth]. In the analysis, careful statistical adjustments were made to ensure a like-for-like comparison of ADHD families with two different control groups. We controlled for carers' ADHD symptoms, their employment and relationship status and siblings' ADHD symptoms. ADHD was associated with a significant deficit in the patient's HRQoL (with a CHU-9D score of around 6 % lower). Children with ADHD also have less sleep and were less happy with their family and their lives overall. No consistent decrement to the HRQoL of the siblings was identified across the models, except that related to their own conduct problems. The siblings do, however, report lower happiness with life overall and with their family, even when controlling for the siblings own ADHD symptoms. We also find evidence of elevated bullying between siblings in families with a child with ADHD. Overall, the current results suggest that the reduction in quality of life caused by ADHD is experienced both by the child with ADHD and their siblings.

The Validity of the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing Short Version (EQ-HWB-S) Instrument in Parents of Children With and Without Health Conditions.

BACKGROUND:  The EuroQol Health and Wellbeing Short Version (EQ-HWB-S) instrument has been developed to measure the health and wellbeing of care-recipients and their caregivers for use in economic evaluation.The EQ-HWB-S has nine items, and pilot UK preference weights have now been developed. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the validity of the instrument in parents of children with and without health conditions. METHODS: EQ-HWB-S data were sourced from an Australian paediatric multi-instrument comparison study. We analysed the baseline characteristics and response distribution of the EQ-HWB-S items. Assessment of known-group validity was conducted for EQ-HWB-S items, level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores, including partial effects. Known-group analyses included three child health variables and where caregivers reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had impacted their wellbeing. We included analyses across gender, controlled for child and parent demographic variables, and compared scores across child health conditions. RESULTS:  Item responses were distributed as expected, with higher skew for mobility and activities. Parents experienced high levels of exhaustion. We detected significant differences between groups for level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores, as hypothesised; all tests were significant (p < 0.001), with moderate effect sizes (effect sizes were slightly higher for female than male parents). The regression analysis identified significantly different EQ-HWB-S scores for child health samples compared with the general population after controlling for demographic variables. Differences were observed between child health conditions. CONCLUSION: The EQ-HWB-S is a useful instrument to measure parent quality of life for economic evaluation in this population. Data were limited to one time point; further research should investigate the instrument's sensitivity to change and test-retest reliability in this population.

The performance of the EQ-HWB-S as a measure of quality-of-life of caregivers in families that have experienced adverse events.

PURPOSE: The recently developed EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument (EQ-HWB) is a broad, generic measure of quality-of-life designed to be suitable for caregivers. The aim of this study was to investigate performance and validity of the 9-item version (EQ-HWB-S) for caregivers where families had experienced adverse-life-events. METHODS: Using survey data from caregivers of children aged 0-8 years attending a community-health centre in 2021-2022, the general performance, feasibility, convergent and known-group validity, responsiveness-to-change, and test-retest reliability of the EQ-HWB-S was assessed. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with survey respondents to assess acceptability and content validity. RESULTS: The sample included  234 caregivers at baseline (81% female, mean age 36-years, 38% Australian-born) and 190 at 6-months follow-up. Most EQ-HWB-S item responses were evenly spread, except for 'Mobility'. The instrument showed good convergent validity with psychological distress (Kessler 6 (K6)) and personal-wellbeing (PWI-A) scales. EQ-HWB-S level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores were significantly different in all known-group analyses, in expected directions, and the instrument was responsive to change. For test-retest reliability, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were excellent and individual item Kappa scores were moderate. The instrument was well received by interviewees who found the questions clear and relevant. The items were appropriate for parents experiencing adversity and carers of children with additional needs. CONCLUSION: The EQ-HWB-S appeared valid, responsive to change, feasible, and well accepted by caregivers. By demonstrating the validity of the EQ-HWB-S in this hard-to-reach population of caregivers in families experiencing adverse events, this study adds to existing international evidence supporting its use.

Rationale, conceptual issues, and resultant protocol for a mixed methods Person Trade Off (PTO) and qualitative study to estimate and understand the relative value of gains in health for children and young people compared to adults.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation of healthcare typically assumes that an identical health gain to different patients has the same social value. There is some evidence that the public may give greater value to gains for children and young people, although this evidence is not always consistent. We present a mixed methods study protocol where we aim to explore public preferences regarding health gains to children and young people relative to adults, in an Australian setting. METHODS: This study is a Person Trade Off (PTO) choice experiment that incorporates qualitative components. Within the PTO questions, respondents will be asked to choose between treating different groups of patients that may differ in terms of patient characteristics and group size. PTO questions will be included in an online survey to explore respondent views on the relative value of health gains to different age groups in terms of extending life and improving different aspects of quality of life. The survey will also contain attitudinal questions to help understand the impact of question style upon reported preferences. Additionally, the study will test the impact of forcing respondents to express a preference between two groups compared with allowing them to report that the two groups are equivalent. One-to-one 'think aloud', semi-structured interviews will be conducted to explore a sub-sample of respondents' motivations and views in more detail. Focus groups will be conducted with members of the public to discuss the study findings and explore their views on the role of public preferences in health care prioritisation based on patient age. DISCUSSION: Our planned study will provide valuable information to healthcare decision makers in Australia who may need to decide whether to pay more for health gains for children and young people compared with adults. Additionally, the methodological test of forcing respondent choice or allowing them to express equivalence will contribute towards developing best practice methods in PTO studies. The rationale for and advantages of the study approach and potential limitations are discussed in the protocol.

Quality Appraisal in Systematic Literature Reviews of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values: Conceptual Considerations.

BACKGROUND: The increasing number of studies that generate health state utility values (HSUVs) and the impact of HSUVs on cost-utility analyses make a robust tailored quality appraisal (QA) tool for systematic reviews of these studies necessary. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to address conceptual issues regarding QA in systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs by establishing a consensus on the definitions, dimensions and scope of a QA tool specific to this context. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used in this study. An international multidisciplinary panel of seven experts was purposively assembled. The experts engaged in two anonymous online survey rounds. After each round, the experts received structured and controlled feedback on the previous phase. Controlled feedback allowed the experts to re-evaluate and adjust their positions based on collective insights. Following these surveys, a virtual face-to-face meeting was held to resolve outstanding issues. Consensus was defined a priori at all stages of the modified Delphi process. RESULTS: The response rates to the first-round and second-round questionnaires and the virtual consensus meeting were 100%, 86% and 71%, respectively. The entire process culminated in a consensus on the definitions of scientific quality, QA, the three QA dimensions-reporting, relevance and  methodological quality-and the scope of a QA tool specific to studies that elicit HSUVs. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving this consensus marks a pivotal step towards developing a QA tool specific to systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs. Future research will build on this foundation, identify QA items, signalling questions and response options, and develop a QA tool specific to studies eliciting HSUVs.

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

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.

Eliciting Societal Preferences for Non-health Outcomes: A Person Trade-Off Study in the Context of Genomics.

PURPOSE: Economic evaluations of health technologies traditionally aim to maximize population health outcomes measured by using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Non-health outcomes, however, may have high social value, and their exclusion has the potential to bias decisions regarding allocation of health care resources. This research positions Australian participants as societal decision-makers to explore their willingness to trade-off health gains in adults for non-health benefits in families with a child affected by a rare disease. METHODS: To estimate the social value of the different health care interventions, a person trade-off (PTO) method was used. PTOs present participants with groups of beneficiaries that vary in terms of the number of individuals who will benefit, the individuals' characteristics, their expected benefits, or a combination, and ask which group should be prioritized. Each trade-off presented health gains from the treatment of moderate physical and mental health conditions described by the 3-level version of the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) health states. The health gains in these groups were traded-off against non-health gains in families accessing diagnostic genomic testing, and equivalence values were calculated, using median and ratio of means methods, based on the ratio of the group sizes at the point of equivalence. Participants were recruited through Prolific and were stratified according to age, sex, and education. The impact of participant characteristics on equivalence values was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis H tests and ordinary least-squares log-linear regressions. FINDINGS: Participants (N = 434) positioned as societal decision-makers were generally willing to trade-off adult health gains with the familial non-health benefits of genomic testing, showing a preference for valuing both types of outcomes within public health policy. The aggregation of preferences generated 2 weightings for genomic testing against each health treatment, an unadjusted value and a reweighted value to match target demographic characteristics. Converted into QALY value per test, it was found that participants valued the non-health benefits of genomic testing between 0.730 and 0.756 QALY. A minority of participants always prioritized diagnostic genomic testing over the physical (6.0%) or mental (4.6%) health treatments, with a larger minority always prioritizing the physical (15.4%) or mental (14.8%) health treatments. IMPLICATIONS: The findings indicate that participants perceived the non-health parental benefits in children experiencing rare disease to have comparable value to health gains in adults experiencing the moderate physical or mental health conditions described using EQ-5D-3L. These findings suggest that the benefits of genomic tests would be underestimated if only health benefits are included in economic evaluations.

Systematic Review of the Effect of a One-Day Versus Seven-Day Recall Duration on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing uncertainty around the most suitable recall period for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHOD: This systematic review integrates quantitative and qualitative literature across health, economics, and psychology to explore the effect of a one-day (or '24-h') versus seven-day (or 'one week') recall period. The following databases were searched from database inception to 30 November 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EconLit, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, and Sociological Abstracts. Studies were included that compared a one-day (or '24-h') versus seven-day (or weekly) recall period condition on patient-reported scores for PROM and Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) instrument scores in adult populations (aged 18 and above) or combined paediatric and adult populations with a majority of respondents aged over 18 years. Studies were excluded if they assessed health behaviours only, used ecological momentary assessment to derive an index of daily recall, or incorporated clinician reports of patient symptoms. We extracted results relevant to six domains with generic health relevance: physical functioning, pain, cognition, psychosocial wellbeing, sleep-related symptoms and aggregated disease-specific signs and symptoms. Quantitative studies compared weekly recall scores with the mean or maximum score over the last seven days or with the same-day recall score. RESULTS: Overall, across the 24 quantitative studies identified, 158 unique results were identified. Symptoms tended to be reported as more severe and HRQoL lower when assessed with a weekly recall than a one-day recall. A narrative synthesis of 33 qualitative studies integrated patient perspectives on the suitability of a one-day versus seven-day recall period for assessing health state or quality of life. Participants had mixed preferences, some noted the accuracy of recall for the one-day period but others preferred the seven-day recall for conditions characterised by high symptom variability, or where PROMs concepts required integration of infrequent experiences or functioning over time. CONCLUSION: This review identified a clear trend toward higher symptom scores and worse quality of life being reported for a seven-day compared to a one-day recall. The review also identified anomalies in this pattern for some wellbeing items and a need for further research on positively framed items. A better understanding of the impact of using different recall periods within PROMs and HRQoL instruments will help contextualise future comparisons between instruments. Questionnaires ask patients about their health over different time periods (e.g., "what were your symptoms like over the last week?" versus "what were your symptoms like today?"). Studies find that people may report their symptoms as more severe when they are asked to think about their symptoms over the last week compared to the last day. Understanding how different time periods influence patient responses will allow researchers to compare and develop new questionnaires and may help clinicians to choose the best questionnaire to understand their patient's condition. We conducted a systematic literature review on studies which had looked at the impact of using different recall periods on patient responses. We found 24 studies that compared patient scores from questionnaires asking their health "over the last day" compared to "over the last week". Overall, symptoms tended to be reported as more severe and health as poorer when they were reported over the last week compared to the last day on average. We also found 33 studies that asked patients to describe which recall period they preferred. Patients had mixed preferences with more preferring a seven-day recall where symptoms and health impacts varied a lot.