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

  • Eline Aas University of Oslo
  • Sanju Silwal University of Turku,
  • Pascal Renee Cyr University of Oslo
  • Tonje Holt Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies (NKVTS)
  • Silje M Ormhaug Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies (NKVTS)
  • Tine K Jensen University of Oslo Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies (NKVTS)
Keywords: HRQoL, 16D, children, adolescents, post-traumatic stress symptoms, condition-specific

Abstract

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.

Published: Online August 2020.

Author Biographies

Eline Aas, University of Oslo

Institute of Health and Society, Department of Health management and Health Economics

PhD, Ass.prof

Sanju Silwal, University of Turku,

Department of Child Psychiatry, Research Centre for Child Psychiatry,

PhD student

Pascal Renee Cyr, University of Oslo
Institute of Health and Society
Department of Health Management and Health Economics
Tonje Holt, Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies (NKVTS)
PHD
Silje M Ormhaug, Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies (NKVTS)
PhD
Tine K Jensen, University of Oslo Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies (NKVTS)

Department of Psychology,

PhD, professor

Published
2020-08-27