Practicality, Validity, and Responsiveness of Using the Proxy Version of the Child Health Utility–9 Dimensions With Children Aged 2 to 5 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the practicality, validity, and responsiveness of the proxy Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions (CHU9D) in children aged 2 to 5 years. METHODS: We used data from the Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention trial, a UK randomized controlled trial testing whether daily emollients in infancy could prevent eczema in high-risk infants. The main parent/carer completed the proxy CHU9D using developers' additional guidance for completion in those younger than 5 years and the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at ages 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. Practicality was assessed by completion rates. Construct validity assessed whether CHU9D could discriminate between those with/without eczema and between eczema severity levels on POEM. Responsiveness was determined by ability to discriminate between 3 groups: (1) those whose POEM score deteriorated ≥3 points, (2) those whose change was not clinically important (-2.9 to 2.9 points), and (3) those whose POEM score improved ≥3 points. Analysis was conducted in Stata 17. RESULTS: Of 1394 children participating in the Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention trial, study questionnaires were completed by 1212 (87%), 981 (70%), 990 (71%), and 976 (70%) at 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. Of these the CHU9D was completed by 1066 (88.0%), 685 (69.8%), 925 (93.4%), and 923 (94.6%), respectively. Mean utility at all time points was approximately 0.934 (range 0.443-1). For construct validity, very small differences in the CHU9D between known groups were observed (P < .01). A total of 801 participants had responsiveness data: 13% deteriorated, 72% had nonclinically important change, and 15% improved. Mean utility change (standardized response mean) for these groups was -0.0198 (0.21), 0.0041 (0.05), and 0.0175 (0.21) showing small change and small responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Proxy CHU9D in 2- to 5-year-old children shows potential but further research is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".