↓ Skip to main content

Adaptation and assessments of the Chinese version of the ICECAP-A measurement

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Adaptation and assessments of the Chinese version of the ICECAP-A measurement
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0865-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chengxiang Tang, Yao Xiong, Hongyan Wu, Judy Xu

Abstract

This study adapts the ICECAP measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) to assess its capacity to measure the quality of life in China for economic evaluation. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to translate the ICECAP-A measure for wellbeing, established by the University of Birmingham, UK, to the Chinese cultural context. A focus group discussion solved the appropriateness and wording of the ICECAP attributes in Chinese; and a randomly selected sample of 1000 adults aged over 18 years were online surveyed. We conducted psychometric tests and compared the factors influencing the ICECAP-A measure with those influencing EQ-5D-3 L. Members of the focus group discussion agreed that the five attributes of the ICECAP-A measure are sufficient to evaluate wellbeing in China. However, the terms "being settled" and "friendship" were changed to "stability" and "kindness" for the Chinese cultural context. Our results show that the Chinese version of ICECAP-A has good internal consistency with an overall Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of 0.7999. The concurrent validity indicates that ICECAP-A is moderately correlated with EQ-5D-3 L (r ≤ 0.52). The ICECAP-A measure can be adapted to evaluate wellbeing in China, but cultural changes to the wording are necessary. It is a valid measurement of wellbeing and can complement the EQ-5D already used in China. However, further work is still needed to evaluate the sensitivity of the ICECAP-A measure in relation to public health and social care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Psychology 7 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 9%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 17 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 December 2018.
All research outputs
#14,094,948
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,131
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,438
of 332,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#47
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 332,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.