Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31694647›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2019

Do socio-demographic characteristics and/or health status explain the magnitude of differences between patient and general public utility values? A chronic low back pain patients case study.

J M van Dongen, M L van Hooff, A P Finch, M W van Tulder, J E Bosmans, R W J G Ostelo, M de Kleuver

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Exploring the origin and conceptual framework of the EQ VAS.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Health-related quality of life deviations from population norms in patients with lumbar radiculopathy: associations with pain, pain cognitions, and endogenous nociceptive modulation.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Article
  4. Health-related quality of life (FACT-GP) in Sweden.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2020
    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

7 authors.

J M van DongenDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. j.m.van.dongen@vu.nl.
M L van HooffSint Maartenskliniek, Department of Research, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
A P FinchDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
M W van TulderDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J E BosmansDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
R W J G OsteloDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
M de KleuverDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

Innovation fund of Dutch healthcare insurers 2921
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUtility values can be obtained from different respondent groups, including patients and members of the general public. Evidence suggests that patient values are typically higher than general public values. This study explores whether the magnitude of disagreement between both values can be explained by socio-demographic characteristics and/or health status.

methodsData of 5037 chronic low back pain patients were used. Self-reported EQ-VAS was employed as a proxy of patients' preference for their own health state. General public values for the patients' EQ-5D-3L health states were obtained using the Dutch VAS-based tariff. The difference between patient and general public values was assessed using a paired t-test. Subsequently, this difference was used as a dependent variable and regressed upon dummy variables of socio-demographic and health status characteristics. Coefficients represented age, gender, education level, social support, back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, functional status, comorbidities, catastrophizing, and treatment expectations.

resultsPatient values were higher than general public values (0.069; 95%CI:0.063-0.076). The magnitude of disagreement between both values was associated with age, gender, education level, social support, functional status, and comorbidities, but not with back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, catastrophizing, and treatment expectations.

conclusionsPatients were found to value their own health status higher than members of the general public. The magnitude of disagreement between both values was found to differ by various socio-demographic and/or health status characteristics. This suggest that patient characteristics account for a relevant fraction of the identified disagreements between patient and general public values, and that mechanisms thought to be responsible for these disagreements, such as adaptation and response shift, have a differential impact across patient sub-groups.

Indexed as

Health StatusQuality of LifeAdultCatastrophizationCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedPhysical Functional PerformanceSelf ReportSocial SupportChronic low back painGeneral public valuesPatient valuesUtility values

Identifiers

PMID31694647
PMCPMC6836537

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.