↓ Skip to main content

Measuring quality of life in opioid-induced constipation: mapping EQ-5D-3 L and PAC-QOL

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Measuring quality of life in opioid-induced constipation: mapping EQ-5D-3 L and PAC-QOL
Published in
Health Economics Review, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13561-016-0091-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony James Hatswell, Stefan Vegter

Abstract

In health economic evaluations, quality of life should be measured with preference-based utilities, such as the EuroQol 5 Dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3 L). Non-preference-based instruments (often disease-specific questionnaires) are commonly mapped to utilities. We investigated if the relationship observed between the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) and the EQ-5D-3 L in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) also applies in opioid-induced constipation (OIC). EQ-5D-3 L patient-level data from a clinical study of lubiprostone in OIC (n = 439) were scored using the UK tariff. A published mapping between the PAC-QOL and the EQ-5D-3 L was tested using these data. New mapping formulas were analysed, including PAC-QOL total and subscale scores. The root mean square error (RMSE), the adjusted R(2) and predicted/observed plots were used to test the fit. The utility measured with the EQ-5D-3 L was 0.450 ± 0.329, with a distinctly bimodal distribution. This significantly improved if patients responded to treatment (defined as an increase of three spontaneous bowel movements per week, with no rescue medication taken). The published mapping in CIC performed poorly in this OIC population, and the PAC-QOL could not be reliably mapped on to the EQ-5D-3 L even when re-estimating coefficients. This was shown in our two mappings (using PAC-QOL total score, and subscale scores) by a high RMSE (0.317 and 0.314) and a low R(2) (0.068 and 0.080), with high utilities underestimated and low utilities overestimated. Patients with OIC have a low quality of life which does improve with the resolution of symptoms. However the PAC-QOL cannot be used to estimate the EQ-5D-3 L utility - potentially as the PAC-QOL does not capture the all relevant aspects of the patients quality of life (for example the cause of the opioid use).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Master 4 16%
Other 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 5 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 2020.
All research outputs
#6,973,607
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#124
of 429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,559
of 299,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 299,499 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 72% of its contemporaries.