Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34419061›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2021

Content validation of the Well-being of Older People measure (WOOP).

Mariska Q N Hackert, Job van Exel, Werner B F Brouwer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Urban Green Space and Subjective Well-Being of Older People: A Systematic Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Validating the Well-Being of Older People (WOOP) Instrument in China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Mariska Q N HackertErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. hackert@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0913-6484
Job van ExelErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Werner B F BrouwerErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundValid measures of the well-being of older people are important for the evaluation of health and social care services. The nine-item Well-being of Older People measure (WOOP) was based on a novel framework derived from a recent Q-methodology study, and was developed to capture a comprehensive set of well-being domains relevant to older people, as identified by themselves. This study introduces the WOOP and describes the qualitative assessment of its feasibility and content validity.

methodsBetween December 2017 and January 2018, a sampling agency retrieved data from 269 adults aged 65 years and older in the Netherlands. Using an online survey, participants were asked to complete the WOOP and to indicate the importance of each item to their well-being. Open-ended questions were used to collect information about participants' own definition of well-being, their interpretation of the items of the WOOP, and their assessment of the descriptions and response options provided with each item. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis with the software package ATLAS.ti.

resultsThe WOOP closely resembled respondents' own description of what well-being means to them. The majority of the respondents reported no important well-being aspects to be missing from the WOOP, and indicated all WOOP items to be at least 'reasonably important' to their well-being. Many linked the WOOP items to well-being aspects as intended, and only a few had suggestions for improving the items' descriptions and response options.

conclusionsGiven these results, all nine items were retained, and no items were added to the measure. Based on respondents' feedback, minor changes were made to the wording of some descriptions and response options of items. Concluding, the feasibility and content validity of the WOOP seem satisfactory. Further validation of this new measure is required, in different health and social care settings and among subgroups of older people with potentially different views on what constitutes well-being.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleHumansMaleNetherlandsPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSocial SupportSocial WorkSurveys and QuestionnairesContent validityMeasurementOlder peopleThe NetherlandsWell-being

Identifiers

PMID34419061
PMCPMC8380379

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.