Xie S, Humphries B, Tse P, et al. CADTH health technology review: measuring and valuing health for children: a review of the evidence. Can J Health Technol. 2024. https://doi.org/10.51731/cjht.2024.975.

Article  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;27:1769–80.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 4th ed. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2017. https://www.cda-amc.ca/guidelines-economic-evaluation-health-technologies-canada-0. Accessed 4 Aug 2025.

Rowen D, Azzabi Zouraq I, Chevrou-Severac H, et al. International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:11–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kind P, Klose K, Gusi N, et al. Can adult weights be used to value child health states? Testing the influence of perspective in valuing EQ-5D-Y. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2519–39.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Kreimeier S, Oppe M, Ramos-Goñi JM, et al. Valuation of EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, youth version (EQ-5D-Y) and EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) health states: the impact of wording and perspective. Value Health. 2018;21(11):1291–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mott DJ, Shah KK, Ramos-Goñi JM, et al. Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L health states using a discrete choice experiment: do adult and adolescent preferences differ? Med Decis Mak. 2021;41(5):584–96.

Article  Google Scholar 

Åström M, Krig S, Ryding S, et al. EQ-5D-Y-5L as a patient-reported outcome measure in psychiatric inpatient care for children and adolescents: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:164.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Lipman SA, Reckers-Droog VT, Kreimeier S. Think of the children: a discussion of the rationale for and implications of the perspective used for EQ-5D-Y health state valuation. Value Health. 2021;24:976–82.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword. Accessed 4 Aug 2025.

Xie F, Xie S, Pullenayegum E, et al. Understanding Canadian stakeholders’ views on measuring and valuing health for children and adolescents: a qualitative study. Qual Life Res. 2024;33:1415–22.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Mott DJ, Shah KK, Ramos-Go JM, et al. Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L health states using a discrete choice experiment: do adult and adolescent preferences differ? Med Decis Mak. 2021;41:584–96.

Article  Google Scholar 

Ramos-Goni JM, Estevez-Carrillo A, Rivero-Arias O, et al. Does changing the age of a child to be considered in 3-level version of EQ-5D-Y discrete choice experiment-based valuation studies affect health preferences? Value Health. 2022;25:1196–204.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rogers HJ, Marshman Z, Rodd H, et al. Discrete choice experiments or best-worst scaling? A qualitative study to determine the suitability of preference elicitation tasks in research with children and young people. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5:26.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Williams G, Kinchin I. The application of discrete choice experiments eliciting young peoples’ preferences for healthcare: a systematic literature review. Eur J Health Econ. 2023;24(6):987–98.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Xie S, Wu J, He X, Chen G, Brazier J. Do discrete choice experiments approaches perform better than time trade-off in eliciting health state utilities? Evidence from SF­6Dv2 in China. Value Health. 2020;23:1391–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Brazier J, Rowen D, Yang Y, et al. Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13:575–87.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rowen D, Brazier J, Van Hout B. A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35:328–40.

Article  Google Scholar 

Pan T, Ramos-Goni J, Roudijk B, et al. Testing the valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-5L in adults and adolescents: results from a five country study and implications for the descriptive system. Value Health (in press). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.016.

Kreimeier S, Åström M, Burström K, et al. EQ-5D-Y-5L: developing a revised EQ-5D-Y with increased response categories. Qual Life Res. 2019;28:1951–61.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-Y-5L user guide, 2024. https://euroqolorg/information-and-support/documentation/user-guides. Accessed 19 July 2025.

Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Stolk E, et al. International valuation protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38:653–63.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31:306–18.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, et al. Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34:773–86.

Article  Google Scholar 

Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Econ. 2014;23:729–42.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:287–98.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Statistics Canada. Census of population, 2021. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm?MM=1. Accessed 19 July 2025.

Powell PA, Rowen D, Keetharuth A, et al. Understanding UK public views on normative decisions made to value health-related quality of life in children: a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2024;340: 116506.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Nazari JL, Pickard AS, Gu NY. Findings from a roundtable discussion with US stakeholders on valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-3L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022;40:139–46.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–72.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:883–902.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Stevens K. Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:729–47.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Powell PA, Rowen D, Rivero-Arias O, et al. Valuing child and adolescent health: a qualitative study on different perspectives and priorities taken by the adult general public. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19:222.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Devlin N, Pan T, Kreimeier S, et al. Valuing EQ-5D-Y: the current state of play. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2022;20:105.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

De Silva A, van Heusden A, Lang Z, et al. How do health state values differ when respondents consider adults versus children living in those states? A systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2025;43:723–40.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Lipman SA, Reckers-Droog VT, Karimi M, et al. Self vs. other, child vs. adult: an experimental comparison of valuation perspectives for valuation of EQ-5D-Y-3L health states. Eur J Health Econ. 2021;22:1507–18.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Tilford JM, Payakachat N, Kovacs E, et al. Preference-based health-related quality-of-life outcomes in children with autism spectrum disorders: a comparison of generic instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:661–79.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, et al. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 2016;54:98–105.

Article