Abstract

Objectives

To report findings from a systematic review, this article sought to address two related questions. First, how has the practice of UK pediatric cost-utility analyses evolved over time, in particular how are health-related outcomes assessed and valued? Second, how do the methods compare to the limited guidance available, in particular, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reference case(s)?

Methods

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were conducted for the period May 2004 to April 2012 and the Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation database for the period May 2004 to December 2010. Identified studies were screened by three independent reviewers.

Results

Forty-three studies were identified, 11 of which elicit utility values through primary research. A discrepancy was identified between the methods used for outcome measurement and valuation and the methods advocated within the NICE reference case. Despite NICE recommending the use of preference-based instruments designed specifically for children, most studies that were identified had used adult measures. In fact, the measurement of quality-adjusted life-years is the aspect of economic evaluation with the greatest amount of variability and the area that most digressed from the NICE reference case.

Conclusions

Recommendations stemming from the review are that all studies should specify the age range of childhood and include separate statements of perspective for costs and effects as well as the reallocation of research funding away from systematic review studies toward good quality primary research measuring utilities in children.