Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26778920›Full record

ArticlePopulation health metrics2015

Assessing disability weights based on the responses of 30,660 people from four European countries.

Juanita A Haagsma, Charline Maertens de Noordhout, Suzanne Polinder, Theo Vos, Arie H Havelaar, Alessandro Cassini, Brecht Devleesschauwer, Mirjam E Kretzschmar, Niko Speybroeck, Joshua A Salomon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Population health metrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
53.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

107 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 201 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Juanita A HaagsmaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, , 3000, CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands ; Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Charline Maertens de NoordhoutInstitute of Health and Society (IRSS), Université catholique de Louvain, Leuven, Belgium.
Suzanne PolinderDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, , 3000, CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Theo VosInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Arie H HavelaarNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, the Netherlands ; Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida USA ; Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Alessandro CassiniEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden.
Brecht DevleesschauwerDepartment of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Mirjam E KretzschmarNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, the Netherlands ; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Niko SpeybroeckInstitute of Health and Society (IRSS), Université catholique de Louvain, Leuven, Belgium.
Joshua A SalomonDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
UCLouvain · BEEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control · SEGhent University · BEHarvard Global Health Institute · USInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn calculations of burden of disease using disability-adjusted life years, disability weights are needed to quantify health losses relating to non-fatal outcomes, expressed as years lived with disability. In 2012 a new set of global disability weights was published for the Global Burden of Disease 2010 (GBD 2010) study. That study suggested that comparative assessments of different health outcomes are broadly similar across settings, but the significance of this conclusion has been debated. The aim of the present study was to estimate disability weights for Europe for a set of 255 health states, including 43 new health states, by replicating the GBD 2010 Disability Weights Measurement study among representative population samples from four European countries.

methodsFor the assessment of disability weights for Europe we applied the GBD 2010 disability weights measurement approach in web-based sample surveys in Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, and Sweden. The survey included paired comparisons (PC) and population health equivalence questions (PHE) formulated as discrete choices. Probit regression analysis was used to estimate cardinal values from PC responses. To locate results onto the 0-to-1 disability weight scale, we assessed the feasibility of using the GBD 2010 scaling approach based on PHE questions, as well as an alternative approach using non-parametric regression.

resultsIn total, 30,660 respondents participated in the survey. Comparison of the probit regression results from the PC responses for each country indicated high linear correlations between countries. The PHE data had high levels of measurement error in these general population samples, which compromises the ability to infer ratio-scaled values from discrete choice responses. Using the non-parametric regression approach as an alternative rescaling procedure, the set of disability weights were bounded by distance vision mild impairment and anemia with the lowest weight (0.004) and severe multiple sclerosis with the highest weight (0.677).

conclusionsPC assessments of health outcomes in this study resulted in estimates that were highly correlated across four European countries. Assessment of the feasibility of rescaling based on a discrete choice formulation of the PHE question indicated that this approach may not be suitable for use in a web-based survey of the general population.

Indexed as

Disability adjusted life yearsDisability weightDisease burdenPrioritisationSummary measure of population healthValue of life

Identifiers

PMID26778920
PMCPMC4715333
OpenAlexW2117703589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.