| Title |
Developing Accessible, Pictorial Versions of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments Suitable for Economic Evaluation: A Report of Preliminary Studies Conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics - Open, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s41669-018-0083-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David G. T. Whitehurst, Nicholas R. Latimer, Aura Kagan, Rebecca Palmer, Nina Simmons-Mackie, J. Charles Victor, Jeffrey S. Hoch |
| Abstract |
A key component of the current framework for economic evaluation is the measurement and valuation of health outcomes using generic preference-based health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments. In 2015, a research synthesis reported the absence of conceptual and empirical research regarding the appropriateness of current preference-based instruments for people with aphasia-a disorder affecting the use and understanding of language-and suggested the development and validation of an accessible, pictorial variant could be an appropriate direction for further research. This paper describes the respective rationale and development process for each of three preliminary studies that have been undertaken to develop pictorial variants of two widely used preference-based HRQoL instruments (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L). The paper also proposes next steps for this program of research, drawing on the lessons learned from the preliminary work and the demand for a pictorial preference-based instrument in the research community. Guidance for the use of the preliminary, pictorial instruments is also provided. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 46% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Scientists | 3 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 19% |
| Psychology | 2 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 31 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,975,508
of 23,073,835 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics - Open
#29
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,343
of 330,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics - Open
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,073,835 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 330,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 91% of its contemporaries.