Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34245195›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2021

Mapping of the World Health Organization's Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 to disability weights using the Multi-Country Survey Study on Health and Responsiveness.

Joran Lokkerbol, Ben F M Wijnen, Somnath Chatterji, Ronald C Kessler, Dan Chisholm

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Mapping from SIBDQ to EQ-5D-5L for patients with inflammatory bowel disease.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Mapping the 12-item World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) onto the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-4D utilities.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Joran LokkerbolCenter of Economic Evaluation & Machine Learning, Trimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ben F M WijnenCenter of Economic Evaluation & Machine Learning, Trimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction), Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7993-1905
Somnath ChatterjiDepartment of Data and Analytics, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3085-6550
Ronald C KesslerDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4831-2305
Dan ChisholmDivision of Country Health Policies and Systems, Regional Office for Europe, World Health Organization, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Harvard University · USMaastricht University · NLWorld Health Organization · CHWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Europe · DK

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop and test an internationally applicable mapping function for converting WHODAS-2.0 scores to disability weights, thereby enabling WHODAS-2.0 to be used in cost-utility analyses and sectoral decision-making.

methodsData from 14 countries were used from the WHO Multi-Country Survey Study on Health and Responsiveness, administered among nationally representative samples of respondents aged 18+ years who were non-institutionalized and living in private households. For the combined total of 92,006 respondents, available WHODAS-2.0 items (for both 36-item and 12-item versions) were mapped onto disability weight estimates using a machine learning approach, whereby data were split into separate training and test sets; cross-validation was used to compare the performance of different regression and penalized regression models. Sensitivity analyses considered different imputation strategies and compared overall model performance with that of country-specific models.

resultsMapping functions converted WHODAS-2.0 scores into disability weights; R-squared values of 0.700-0.754 were obtained for the test data set. Penalized regression models reached comparable performance to standard regression models but with fewer predictors. Imputation had little impact on model performance. Model performance of the generic model on country-specific test sets was comparable to model performance of country-specific models.

conclusionsDisability weights can be generated with good accuracy using WHODAS 2.0 scores, including in national settings where health state valuations are not directly available, which signifies the utility of WHODAS as an outcome measure in evaluative studies that express intervention benefits in terms of QALYs gained.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationPersons with DisabilitiesHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesWorld Health Organizationdisability weightmapping functionmulti-country survey study on health and responsivenessWHODAS-2.0

Identifiers

PMID34245195
PMCPMC8412228
OpenAlexW3181490244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.