↓ Skip to main content

Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D–5L: South Australian population norms

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
305 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 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
Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D–5L: South Australian population norms
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0537-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikki McCaffrey, Billingsley Kaambwa, David C. Currow, Julie Ratcliffe

Abstract

Although a five level version of the widely-used EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) instrument has been developed, population norms are not yet available for Australia to inform the future valuation of health in economic evaluations. The aim of this study was to estimate HrQOL normative values for the EQ-5D-5L preference-based measure in a large, randomly selected, community sample in South Australia. The EQ-5D-5L instrument was included in the 2013 South Australian Health Omnibus Survey, an interviewer-administered, face-to-face, cross-sectional survey. Respondents rated their level of impairment across dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression) and global health rating on a visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS). Utility scores were derived using the newly-developed UK general population-based algorithm and relationships between utility and EQ-VAS scores and socio-demographic factors were also explored using multivariate regression analyses. Ultimately, 2,908 adults participated in the survey (63.4 % participation rate). The mean utility and EQ-VAS scores were 0.91 (95 CI 0.90, 0.91) and 78.55 (95 % CI 77.95, 79.15), respectively. Almost half of respondents reported no problems across all dimensions (42.8 %), whereas only 7.2 % rated their health >90 on the EQ-VAS (100 = the best health you can imagine). Younger age, male gender, longer duration of education, higher annual household income, employment and marriage/de facto relationships were all independent, statistically significant predictors of better health status (p < 0.01) measured with the EQ-VAS. Only age and employment status were associated with higher utility scores, indicating fundamental differences between these measures of health status. This is the first Australian study to apply the EQ-5D-5L in a large, community sample. Overall, findings are consistent with EQ-5D-5L utility and VAS scores reported for other countries and indicate that the majority of South Australian adults report themselves in full health. When valuing health in Australian economic evaluations, the utility population norms can be used to estimate HrQOL. More generally, the EQ-VAS score may be a better measure of population health given the smaller ceiling effect and broader coverage of HrQOL dimensions. Further research is recommended to update EQ-5D-5L population norms using the Australian general population specific scoring algorithm once this becomes publically available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 272 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 15%
Researcher 28 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 8%
Student > Bachelor 21 8%
Student > Postgraduate 14 5%
Other 49 18%
Unknown 98 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 5%
Psychology 11 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 41 15%
Unknown 113 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 January 2022.
All research outputs
#6,442,018
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#740
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,694
of 320,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#4
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 320,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.