4.6 Article

Economic costs and preference-based health-related quality of life outcomes associated with childhood psychiatric disorders

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 197, 期 5, 页码 395-404

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.081307

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council, UK
  2. MRC
  3. Medical Research Council [G0501681, G0401525] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G0501681, G0401525] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Childhood psychiatric disorders may have deleterious consequences through childhood and into adulthood. Aims To estimate costs and preference-based health-related quality of life outcomes (health utilities) associated with a broad range of childhood psychiatric disorders during the eleventh year of life. Method Participants in a whole-population study of extremely preterm children and term-born controls (EPICure) undertook psychiatric assessment using the Development and Well Being Assessment (DAWBA) and the Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children. Questionnaires completed by parents and teachers described the children's utilisation of health, social and education services during the eleventh year of life. Parents also described their child's health status using the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 health status classification systems. Descriptive and multiple regression techniques were used to explore the association between psychiatric disorders and economic outcomes. Results The study presents detailed costs and health utilities associated with psychiatric disorders for the preterm population, term-born population and pooled study population, following appropriate controls. Conclusions The results of this study should be used to inform future economic evaluations of interventions aimed at preventing childhood psychiatric disorders or alleviating their effects. Further research is required that identifies, measures and values the longer-term economic impacts of these disorders in a valid and reliable manner.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据