| Title |
“When I saw walking I just kind of took it as wheeling”: interpretations of mobility-related items in generic, preference-based health state instruments in the context of spinal cord injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-016-0565-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yvonne Anne Michel, Lidia Engel, Kim Rand-Hendriksen, Liv Ariane Augestad, David GT Whitehurst |
| Abstract |
In health economic analyses, health states are typically valued using instruments with few items per dimension. Due to the generic (and often reductionist) nature of such instruments, certain groups of respondents may experience challenges in describing their health state. This study is concerned with generic, preference-based health state instruments that provide information for decisions about the allocation of resources in health care. Unlike physical measurement instruments, preference-based health state instruments provide health state values that are dependent on how respondents interpret the items. This study investigates how individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) interpret mobility-related items contained within six preference-based health state instruments. Secondary analysis of focus group transcripts originally collected in Vancouver, Canada, explored individuals' perceptions and interpretations of mobility-related items contained within the 15D, Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimension (AQoL-8D), EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index (HUI), Quality of Well-Being Scale Self-Administered (QWB-SA), and the 36-item Short Form health survey version 2 (SF-36v2). Ritchie and Spencer's 'Framework Approach' was used to perform thematic analysis that focused on participants' comments concerning the mobility-related items only. Fifteen individuals participated in three focus groups (five per focus group). Four themes emerged: wording of mobility (e.g., 'getting around' vs 'walking'), reference to aids and appliances, lack of suitable response options, and reframing of items (e.g., replacing 'walking' with 'wheeling'). These themes reflected item features that respondents perceived as relevant in enabling them to describe their mobility, and response strategies that respondents could use when faced with inaccessible items. Investigating perceptions to mobility-related items within the context of SCI highlights substantial variation in item interpretation across six preference-based health state instruments. Studying respondents' interpretations of items can help to understand discrepancies in the health state descriptions and values obtained from different instruments. This line of research warrants closer attention in the health economics and quality of life literature. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 33% |
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 111 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 21 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 37 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 34% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 11% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 43 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 October 2023.
All research outputs
#14,406,083
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,119
of 2,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,148
of 426,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#10
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,260 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 426,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.