How Do Respondents Interpret and View the EQ-VAS? A Qualitative Study of Three Asian Populations
Patient, ISSN: 1178-1661, Vol: 14, Issue: 2, Page: 283-293
2021
- 15Citations
- 9Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations15
- Citation Indexes15
- 15
- CrossRef4
- Captures9
- Readers9
Article Description
Background: This study aimed to understand how respondents from three Asian countries interpret and perceive the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS). Method: Data were from a project that aimed to examine the cultural appropriateness of EQ-5D in Asia. Members of the general public from China, Japan, and Singapore were interviewed one-to-one in their preferred languages. Open-ended questions (e.g. What does “best imaginable health” mean to you?) were used to elicit participants’ interpretation of the labels of EQ-VAS. How the scale could be improved was also probed. Thematic and content analyses were performed separately for each country before pooling for comparison. Results: Sixty Chinese, 24 Japanese, and 60 Singaporeans were interviewed. Interpretations of the label “Best Imaginable Health” varied among the participants. Interestingly, some participants indicated that “Best Imaginable Health” is unachievable. Interpretations for “Worst Imaginable Health” also varied, with participants referring primarily to one of three themes, namely, “death,” “disease,” and “disability.” There were different opinions as to what changes in health would correspond to a 5- to 10-point change on the EQ-VAS. While participants opined that EQ-VAS is easy to understand, some criticized it for being too granular and that scale labels are open to interpretation. Findings from the three countries were similar. Conclusion: It appears that interpretations of the EQ-VAS vary across Asian respondents. Future studies should investigate whether the variations are associated with any respondent characteristics and whether the EQ-VAS could be modified to achieve better respondent acceptance.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85091175955&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00452-5; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32944897; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00452-5; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00452-5; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40271-020-00452-5
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know