Background and Objective Healthcare interventions that improve the health of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have the potential to afect the health of caregivers. This study compares the three-level EuroQoL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) and the Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) in their ability to value such spillover efects in caregivers.

Methods Clinical data collected from two Autism Treatment Network (ATN) sites was combined with survey data of caregivers of children diagnosed with ASD. Caregivers completed instruments by proxy describing child health and completed the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D preference-weighted instruments to describe their own health.

Results There was a strong correlation between the health utility scores of the two preference-weighted instruments (ρ=0.6172, p<0.001) measuring caregiver health-related quality of life. There was a similar correlation between both the SF-6D and EQ-5D-3L scores with a previously validated care-related quality of life measure (Care-related Quality of Life instrument [CarerQol-7D]) (ρ=0.569, p<0.001 and ρ=0.541, p<0.001, respectively). The mean SF-6D scores for caregivers difered signifcantly in relation to four of the fve child health or behavior measures whereas the EQ-5D-3L difered for only two of them.

Conclusions Health utility values of caregivers for children with ASD vary by the health characteristics of the child, suggesting signifcant potential for spillover efects. The comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D demonstrated that both instruments can be used to estimate spillover efects of interventions to improve child health, but the SF-6D exhibited greater sensitivity to child health among children with ASD.

Additional Metadata
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00789-2, hdl.handle.net/1765/119849
Journal PharmacoEconomics
Citation
Brown, C, Tilford, J.M, Payakachat, N, Williams, K, Kuhlthau, K.A, Pyne, J.M, … Brouwer, W.B.F. (2019). Measuring Caregiver Spillover Effects Associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D. PharmacoEconomics, 37(4), 609–620. doi:10.1007/s40273-019-00789-2