A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children and adolescent with post-traumatic stress symptom: A comparison of 16D and condition-specific instruments




TekijätEline Aas, Sanju Silwal, Pascal Renee Cyr, Tonje Holt, Silje M Ormhaug, Tine K Jensen

Julkaisuvuosi2020

JournalNordic Journal of Health Economics

Lehden akronyymiNJHE

Vuosikerta8

Numero1

Aloitussivu46

Lopetussivu71

eISSN1892-9710

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.5617/njhe.6929

Verkko-osoitehttps://journals.uio.no/NJHE/article/view/6929

Rinnakkaistallenteen osoitehttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/50031705


Tiivistelmä

The objective of this study was to compare Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) as measured by the 16D instrument with four condition-specific instruments in children and adolescents with significant post-traumatic stress disease (PTSD), to assess the validity of the 16D instrument. In addition, we test for differences in health for the PTSD population compared to a representative sample of Finnish schoolchildren. The study included 156 children and adolescents with trauma-related symptoms in Norway. The condition-specific instruments included were; Child PTDS Symptom Scale (CPSS); Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ); Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED), and; Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). We found that the 16D HRQoL score was significantly correlated with all condition-specific instruments (CPSS, SCARED, MFQ, and SDQ), where SCARED had the highest correlation with the 16D (-0.659, p < 0.01). Several of the corresponding items (sleep, distress, discomfort and symptoms, mental functioning, and school and hobbies) of the condition-specific instruments were correlated above the threshold (convergent validity, ρ > 0.4). Children and adolescents with symptoms of post-traumatic stress experienced a significant health loss of 0.177 compared to a representative sample of Finnish 12 to 15-years-old schoolchildren with a Cohen’s d of 1.07, and the health difference was significant for all 16 dimensions. These findings support the use of the 16D to measure health outcomes in cost-utility analysis. More studies are needed to examine the responsiveness.


Ladattava julkaisu

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Please cite the original version.





Last updated on 2024-26-11 at 20:10