ArticleScientific reports2023
A head-to-head comparison of well-being of older people (WOOP) and EQ-5D-5L in patients, carers and general public in China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review of the Application of Generic Preference-Based Instruments with Older People Across Care Settings.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Review
- Article
- Examining the relationship between the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) and EQ-5D-5L and comparing their psychometric properties.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, well-being of older people measure (WOOP) was developed and validated in a Dutch population. Although WOOP was developed targeting the older people, it has the potential for use in a wider population. In this study, we aimed to examine the relationship between WOOP and EQ-5D-5L and compared their psychometric properties in a sample of patients, carers and healthy general public covering a wider age group. We conducted a cross-sectional study in Guizhou Province, China between July and August 2022. Data was collected using paper and pencil. We analysed and reported the acceptability, item response distribution, the Spearman correlation coefficients of all items, the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of all items, the known-group validity and the convergent validity of EQ-5D-5L utility and WOOP utility. A total of 322 participants completed the survey with 105 patients, 101 carers and 116 healthy general public. 9% of participants had at least one missing response. Three items of WOOP did not have any level 5 responses and EQ-5D-5L had more level 1 responses. The correlations were low between EQ-5D-5L and WOOP items and the three-factor EFA showed these two instruments had only one shared factor and the other two factors were only related to WOOP items. Younger people had lower missing response rate and a different response distribution for three items. WOOP measures a broader construct beyond health while EQ-5D-5L is a more sensitive instrument when health is considered alone. There is a potential of using WOOP in a wider population.
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.