↓ Skip to main content

What were they thinking when providing preference measurements for generic health states? The evidence for HUI3

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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
What were they thinking when providing preference measurements for generic health states? The evidence for HUI3
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0993-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Feeny, William Furlong, George W. Torrance

Abstract

Multi-attribute generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life are used as comprehensive outcome measures. Typically preferences for health states defined by these systems are elicited from a representative sample of the general population. An important element in that elicitation process is the information that respondents were instructed to consider in providing their responses. A random sample of community-dwelling respondents in Canada was surveyed in face-to-face interviews. Respondents provided preference scores for selected Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) health states. Respondents also answered questions about the most important attributes and the importance of various impacts of the health states in providing their preference scores. Fifty per cent of respondents reported that they focussed on two, and 21% on three, attributes of the eight HUI3 attributes. Each of the eight attributes was identified as important; pain (49%), vision (37%), cognition (34%), emotion (28%), and ambulation (28%) were the most important. The null hypothesis that all of the attributes were equally important was rejected (p < 0.001). With respect to the impacts, 89% of respondents indicated that the ability to take care of oneself was quite or very important; similarly 76% reported the same for impact on family life, 69% for impact on the happiness of others, 61% for the impact on their ability to work, and 42% for the impact on their leisure activities. The null hypothesis that all of the impacts were equally important was rejected (p < 0.001). In providing preference scores for HUI3 health states, respondents thoughtfully examined the implications of the health states for their ability to live, work, socialize, and function.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Other 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 24 52%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 9%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 25 54%
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 20 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,236,922
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#280
of 2,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,464
of 330,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#17
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 330,630 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.