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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
An empirical comparison of the OPQoL-Brief, EQ-5D-3 L and ASCOT in a community dwelling population of older people
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-015-0357-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Billingsley Kaambwa, Liz Gill, Nicola McCaffrey, Emily Lancsar, Ian D. Cameron, Maria Crotty, Len Gray, Julie Ratcliffe |
| Abstract |
This study examined the relationships between a newly developed older person-specific non-preference-based quality of life (QoL) instrument (Older People's Quality of Life brief questionnaire (OPQoL-brief)) and two generic preference-based instruments (the EQ-5D-3L Level (EQ-5D-3 L) and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) in a community-dwelling population of Australian older people receiving aged care services. We formulated hypotheses about the convergent validity between the instruments (examined by Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney, Kruskal Wallis and Spearman's correlation tests) and levels of agreement (assessed using intra class correlation (ICC) and modified Bland-Altman plots based on normalized Z EQ-5D-3 L and ASCOT utilities and OPQoL-Brief summary scores). The utilities/summary scores for 87 participants (aged 65-93 years) were moderately but positively correlated. Moderate convergent validity was evident for a number of instrument dimensions with the strongest relationship (r = 0.57) between 'enjoy life' (OPQoL-Brief) and 'social contact' (ASCOT). The overall ICC was 0.54 and Bland-Altman scatter plots showed 3-6 % of normalized Z-scores were outside the 95 % limits of agreement suggesting moderate agreement between all three instruments (agreement highest between the OPQoL-Brief and the ASCOT). Our results suggest that the OPQoL-Brief, the ASCOT and the EQ-5D_3L are suitable for measuring quality of life outcomes in community-dwelling populations of older people. Given the different constructs underpinning these instruments, we recommend that choice of instrument should be guided by the context in which the instruments are being applied. Currently, the OPQoL-Brief is not suitable for use in cost-utility analyses as it is not preference-based. Given their different perspectives, we recommend that both the ASCOT and the EQ-5D are applied simultaneously to capture broader aspects of quality of life and health status within cost-utility analyses within the aged care sector. Future research directed towards the development of a new single preference-based instrument that incorporates both health status and broader aspects of quality of life within quality adjusted life year calculations for older people would be beneficial. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 30 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 34 | 42% |
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 30 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,427,608
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,669
of 2,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,225
of 274,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#28
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 274,274 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.