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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of App-Guided Self-Management for Posttraumatic Stress: Trial-Based Economic Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- 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 · 2024Trial
- Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of task-shared care for people with severe mental disorders in Ethiopia (TaSCS): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2022Trial
- Addressing PTSD symptoms in first responders and healthcare workers through trauma-focused treatment in Employee Assistance Programs: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2026Article
- Development of a World Health Organization indicator and corresponding questions to measure effective coverage of rehabilitation.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- ICF based comparison of musculoskeletal health in regions of Poland and Spain.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Mapping the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) onto SF-6D Using Swedish General Population Data.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
- Can global or national disability weights represent provincial level?BMC public health · 2023Article
- Making an economic argument for investment in global mental health: The case of conflict-affected refugees and displaced people.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2023Review
- Cost-effectiveness of psychological intervention within services for depression delivered by primary care workers in Nepal: economic evaluation of a randomized control trial.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2022Article
- A randomized controlled trial of cognitive control training (CCT) as an add-on treatment for late-life depression: a study protocol.BMC psychiatry · 2021Article
- 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.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCORRIGENDUM.2022
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.