↓ Skip to main content

Comparing the measurement equivalence of EQ-5D-5L across different modes of administration

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Comparing the measurement equivalence of EQ-5D-5L across different modes of administration
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12955-015-0382-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brendan Mulhern, Hannah O’Gorman, Neil Rotherham, John Brazier

Abstract

Interest in collecting Patient Reported Outcomes using electronic methods such as mobile phones has increased in recent years. However there is debate about the level of measurement equivalence between the traditional paper and newer electronic modes. Information about the acceptability of the electronic versions to respondents is also required. The aim of this study is to compare the equivalence of delivering a widely used generic measure of health status (EQ-5D-5L) across two administration modes (paper and mobile phone). Respondents from a research cohort of people in South Yorkshire were identified, and randomly allocated to one of two administration modes (paper vs. mobile phone) based on stratifications for age and gender (and across a range of self-reported health conditions). A parallel group design was used where each respondent only completed EQ-5D-5L using one of the modes. In total, 70 respondents completed the measure in the mobile phone arm, and 66 completed the standard paper version. Follow up usability questions were also included to assess the acceptability of the mobile version of EQ-5D-5L. Measurement equivalence was compared at the dimension, utility score and visual analogue scale level using chi square analysis and ANOVA, and by comparing mean differences to an estimated minimally important difference value. Response rates were higher in the mobile arm. The mean EQ-5D-5L utility and VAS scores, and the frequency of respondents endorsing individual EQ-5D-5L dimension response levels did not significantly differ across the administration modes. The majority of the mobile arm agreed that the mobile version of EQ-5D-5L was easy to complete, and that the phone was easy to use, and that they would complete mobile health measures again. Completing health status measures such as EQ-5D using mobile phones produces equivalent results to more traditional methods, but with added benefits (for example lessening the burden of data entry). Respondents are positive towards completing questionnaires using these methods. The results provide evidence that electronic measures are valid for use to collect data in a range of settings including clinical trials, routine care, and in health diary settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 91 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 17%
Psychology 10 11%
Computer Science 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 24 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,343,073
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#732
of 2,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,448
of 387,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#6
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,158 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 66% 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 387,189 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.