↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of health utility scores calculated using United Kingdom and Canadian preference weights in persons with alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
A comparison of health utility scores calculated using United Kingdom and Canadian preference weights in persons with alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0510-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mingying Fang, Mark Oremus, Jean-Eric Tarride, Parminder Raina, Canadian Willingness-to-pay Study Group

Abstract

The use of the EQ-5D to asses the economic benefits of health technologies has led to questions about the cross-population transferability of preference weights to calculate health utility scores. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of UK and Canadian preference weights will lead to the calculation of different health utility scores in a sample of persons with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their primary informal caregivers. We recruited 216 patient-caregiver dyads from nine geriatric and memory clinics across Canada. Participants used the EQ-5D-3L to rate their health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). EQ-5D-3L responses were transformed into health utility scores using UK and Canadian preference weights. The levels of agreement between the two sets of scores were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Bland-Altman plots depicted individual-level differences between the two sets of scores. Differences in health utility scores were tested using the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test. A generalized linear model with a gamma distribution was used to examine whether participants' socio-demographic characteristics were associated with their health utility scores. The distributions of health utility scores derived from both the UK and Canadian preference weights were skewed to the left. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.94 (95 % CI: 0.92, 0.95) for persons with AD and 0.92 (95 % CI: 0.88, 0.94) for the caregivers. The Canadian weights yielded slightly higher median health utility scores than the UK weights for caregivers (median difference: 0.009; 95 % confidence interval: 0.007, 0.013). This finding persisted after stratifying by disease severity. Few socio-demographic characteristics were associated with the two sets of health utility scores. Health utility scores exhibited small and clinically unimportant differences when calculated with UK versus Canadian preference weights in persons with AD and their caregivers. The original UK and Canadian population samples used to obtain the preference weights valued health states similarly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Master 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 27 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 21%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 28 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,240,863
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,000
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,239
of 363,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#10
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,160 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 52% 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 363,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 73% of its contemporaries.