↓ Skip to main content

Is the EQ-5D fit for purpose in asthma? Acceptability and content validity from the patient perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 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 (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Is the EQ-5D fit for purpose in asthma? Acceptability and content validity from the patient perspective
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0970-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diane Whalley, Gary Globe, Rebecca Crawford, Lynda Doward, Eskinder Tafesse, John Brazier, David Price

Abstract

The increasing emphasis on patient-reported outcomes in health care decision making has prompted greater rigor in the evidence to support the instruments used. Acceptability and content validity are important properties of any measure to ensure it assesses the relevant aspects of the target concept. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acceptability and content validity of the EQ-5D 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) to assess the impact of asthma on patients' lives. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 adults with asthma in the United Kingdom. The first 25 interviews used cognitive-debriefing methods to assess the relevance and acceptability of the EQ-5D-5L and two asthma-specific measures for comparison: an asthma-specific, preference-based measure (the Asthma Quality of Life Utility Index-5 Dimensions) and an Asthma Symptom Diary. The final 15 interviews combined concept elicitation to identify patient-perceived asthma impact, and cognitive debriefing to assess relevance and acceptability of the EQ-5D-5L and the Asthma Symptom Diary. Cognitive-debriefing feedback on the content of the measures was collated and summarized descriptively. The concept-elicitation data were analyzed thematically. Participants were aged 20 to 57 years and 62.5% were female. Although some participants expressed positive opinions on aspects of the EQ-5D-5L, only the usual activities dimension was consistently considered relevant to participants' asthma experiences. The mobility and self-care dimensions prompted strong negative reactions from some participants. Variations in interpretation of the mobility dimension and difficulties with multiple concepts in the pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions also were noted. Concepts reported by participants as missing included environmental triggers, asthma symptoms, emotions, and sleep. The EQ-5D-5L was the least preferred measure to describe the impact of asthma on participants' lives. Participants reported shortness of breath and impact on activities as especially salient issues. The content of the EQ-5D-5L was poorly aligned with the patient-perceived impact of asthma, and the measure failed to meet basic standards for acceptability and content validity as a measure to assess the impact of asthma from the patient perspective. The shortcomings identified raise concerns regarding the appropriateness of the EQ-5D in asthma and further evaluation is warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 23%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 19 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 8%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 19 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 14 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,563,751
of 19,097,846 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#79
of 2,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,160
of 291,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,097,846 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,014 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 291,582 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them