Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29020343›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of public health2018

Disability weights for infectious diseases in four European countries: comparison between countries and across respondent characteristics.

Charline Maertens de Noordhout, Brecht Devleesschauwer, Joshua A Salomon, Heather Turner, Alessandro Cassini, Edoardo Colzani, Niko Speybroeck, Suzanne Polinder, Mirjam E Kretzschmar, Arie H Havelaar and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

11 authors.

Charline Maertens de NoordhoutInstitute of Health and Society, Université catholique de Louvain (Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs, 30) Brussels, Belgium.
Brecht DevleesschauwerDepartment of Public Health and Surveillance, Scientific Institute of Public Health (WIV-ISP), Brussels, Belgium.
Joshua A SalomonDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Heather TurnerDepartment of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Alessandro CassiniEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden.
Edoardo ColzaniEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden.
Niko SpeybroeckInstitute of Health and Society, Université catholique de Louvain (Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs, 30) Brussels, Belgium.
Suzanne PolinderDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mirjam E KretzschmarNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Arie H HavelaarDepartment of Animal Health and Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Juanita A HaagsmaJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In 2015, new disability weights (DWs) for infectious diseases were constructed based on data from four European countries. In this paper, we evaluated if country, age, sex, disease experience status, income and educational levels have an impact on these DWs. Methods: We analyzed paired comparison responses of the European DW study by participants' characteristics with separate probit regression models. To evaluate the effect of participants' characteristics, we performed correlation analyses between countries and within country by respondent characteristics and constructed seven probit regression models, including a null model and six models containing participants' characteristics. We compared these seven models using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Results: According to AIC, the probit model including country as covariate was the best model. We found a lower correlation of the probit coefficients between countries and income levels (range rs: 0.97-0.99, P < 0.01) than between age groups (range rs: 0.98-0.99, P < 0.01), educational level (range rs: 0.98-0.99, P < 0.01), sex (rs = 0.99, P < 0.01) and disease status (rs = 0.99, P < 0.01). Within country the lowest correlations of the probit coefficients were between low and high income level (range rs = 0.89-0.94, P < 0.01). Conclusions: We observed variations in health valuation across countries and within country between income levels. These observations should be further explored in a systematic way, also in non-European countries. We recommend future researches studying the effect of other characteristics of respondents on health assessment.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsCommunicable DiseasesEducational StatusFemaleHealth SurveysHumansHungaryIncomeItalyMaleMiddle AgedNetherlands

Identifiers

PMID29020343
PMCPMC5881674

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.