↓ Skip to main content

Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40273-016-0446-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Billingsley Kaambwa, Gang Chen, Julie Ratcliffe, Angelo Iezzi, Aimee Maxwell, Jeff Richardson

Abstract

Economic evaluation of health services commonly requires information regarding health-state utilities. Sometimes this information is not available but non-utility measures of quality of life may have been collected from which the required utilities can be estimated. This paper examines the possibility of mapping a non-utility-based outcome, the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S), onto five multi-attribute utility instruments: Assessment of Quality of Life 8 Dimensions (AQoL-8D), EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), 15 Dimensions (15D), and the Short-Form 6 Dimensions (SF-6D). Data for 856 individuals with asthma were obtained from a large Multi-Instrument Comparison (MIC) survey. Four statistical techniques were employed to estimate utilities from the AQLQ-S. The predictive accuracy of 180 regression models was assessed using six criteria: mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), correlation, distribution of predicted utilities, distribution of residuals, and proportion of predictions with absolute errors <0.0.5. Validation of initial 'primary' models was carried out on a random sample of the MIC data. Best results were obtained with non-linear models that included a quadratic term for the AQLQ-S score along with demographic variables. The four statistical techniques predicted models that performed differently when assessed by the six criteria; however, the best results, for both the estimation and validation samples, were obtained using a generalised linear model (GLM estimator). It is possible to predict valid utilities from the AQLQ-S using regression methods. We recommend GLM models for this exercise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Master 5 13%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 15 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,812,737
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,571
of 1,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,034
of 341,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#21
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,481 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.