↓ Skip to main content

Mapping the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory to the Health Utility Index Mark III

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Mapping the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory to the Health Utility Index Mark III
Published in
Quality of Life Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11136-018-1991-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yin Bun Cheung, Hui Xing Tan, Vivian Wei Wang, Nagaendran Kandiah, Nan Luo, Gerald C. H. Koh, Hwee Lin Wee

Abstract

To map the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL) to the Health Utility Index Mark III (HUI3) in people living with dementia (PWD) and to compare the performance of five methods for mapping. A cross-sectional study of 346 dyads of community-dwelling PWD and family caregiver was carried out in Singapore. ADCS-ADL and HUI3 were rated by the family caregivers. Disease severity ratings and Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) results were retrieved from medical records. A recently proposed mapping method called the Mean Rank Method (MRM) was described and applied, and the results were compared with regression-based mapping, including ordinary least squares, censored least absolute deviation (CLAD), Tobit and response mapping. The MRM produced a mapped utility distribution that closely resembled the observed utility distribution. The standard deviations (SDs) of the observed and MRM-mapped utility were both 0.340, whereas the SDs of the other mapped utilities ranged from 0.243 (response mapping) to 0.283 (CLAD). Regressing the MRM- and CLAD-mapped and observed utility values upon disease severity and MMSE gave similar regression lines (each P > 0.05). Regressing the other mapped utility values upon the covariates under- (over-) estimated the utility of good (poor) clinical states. However, regression-based mapping methods gave a better fit at the individual level, as measured by root mean square error, mean absolute error and R2. K fold cross-validation gave similar results. The MRM is accurate at the group level. The regression-based mapping methods are more accurate for making individual-level prediction. In addition, CLAD also performed reasonably well at the group level.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 15%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 25 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Psychology 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 25 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,171,758
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#269
of 2,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,127
of 335,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#9
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,923 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 335,775 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.