↓ Skip to main content

Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL): a new generic self-reported outcome measure for use with people experiencing mental health difficulties†

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Psychiatry, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
92 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
220 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL): a new generic self-reported outcome measure for use with people experiencing mental health difficulties†
Published in
British Journal of Psychiatry, January 2018
DOI 10.1192/bjp.2017.10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anju Devianee Keetharuth, John Brazier, Janice Connell, Jakob Bue Bjorner, Jill Carlton, Elizabeth Taylor Buck, Thomas Ricketts, Kirsty McKendrick, John Browne, Tim Croudace, Michael Barkham

Abstract

Outcome measures for mental health services need to adopt a service-user recovery focus. Aims To develop and validate a 10- and 20-item self-report recovery-focused quality of life outcome measure named Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL). Qualitative methods for item development and initial testing, and quantitative methods for item reduction and scale construction were used. Data from >6500 service users were factor analysed and item response theory models employed to inform item selection. The measures were tested for reliability, validity and responsiveness. ReQoL-10 and ReQoL-20 contain positively and negatively worded items covering seven themes: activity, hope, belonging and relationships, self-perception, well-being, autonomy, and physical health. Both versions achieved acceptable internal consistency, test-retest reliability (>0.85), known-group differences, convergence with related measures, and were responsive over time (standardised response mean (SRM) > 0.4). They performed marginally better than the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale and markedly better than the EQ-5D. Both versions are appropriate for measuring service-user recovery-focused quality of life outcomes. Declaration of interest M.B. and J.Co. were members of the research group that developed the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE) outcome measures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 92 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 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 220 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Student > Master 21 10%
Other 15 7%
Student > Bachelor 13 6%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 72 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 58 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 5%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 82 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 07 November 2023.
All research outputs
#651,602
of 25,698,912 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Psychiatry
#333
of 6,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,829
of 452,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Psychiatry
#234
of 5,318 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,698,912 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,351 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 452,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,318 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.