↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the causal and effect nature of EQ-5D dimensions: an application of confirmatory tetrad analysis and confirmatory factor analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Exploring the causal and effect nature of EQ-5D dimensions: an application of confirmatory tetrad analysis and confirmatory factor analysis
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0975-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thor Gamst-Klaussen, Claire Gudex, Jan Abel Olsen

Abstract

The relationship between the various items in an HRQoL instrument is a key aspect of interpreting and understanding preference weights. The aims of this paper were i) to use theoretical models of HRQoL to develop a conceptual framework for causal and effect relationships among the five dimensions of the EQ-5D instrument, and ii) to empirically test this framework. A conceptual framework depicts the symptom dimensions [Pain/discomfort (PD) and Anxiety/depression (AD)] as causal indicators that drive a change in the effect indicators of activity/participation [Mobility (MO), Self-care (SC) and Usual activities (UA)], where MO has an intermediate position between PD and the other two effect dimensions (SC and UA). Confirmatory tetrad analysis (CTA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to test this framework using EQ-5D-5L data from 7933 respondents in six countries, classified as healthy (n = 1760) or in one of seven disease groups (n = 6173). CTA revealed the best fit for a model specifying SC and UA as effect indicators and PD, AD and MO as causal indicators. This was supported by CFA, revealing a satisfactory fit to the data: CFI = 0.992, TLI = 0.972, RMSEA = 0.075 (90% CI 0.062-0.088), and SRMR = 0.012. The EQ-5D appears to include both causal indicators (PD and AD) and effect indicators (SC and UA). Mobility played an intermediate role in our conceptual framework, being a cause of problems with Self-care and Usual activities, but also an effect of Pain/discomfort. However, the empirical analyses of our data suggest that Mobility is mostly a causal indicator.

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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 26 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 28 46%
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 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,359,320
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,172
of 2,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,318
of 329,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#53
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 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 2,189 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 329,833 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 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.