ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2024
An empirical comparison of sleep-specific versus generic quality of life instruments among Australians with sleep disorders.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn Australian adults diagnosed with a sleep disorder(s), this cross-sectional study compares the empirical relationships between two generic QoL instruments, the EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) and ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A), and three sleep-specific metrics, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), 10-item Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ-10), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI).
methodsConvergent and divergent validity between item/dimension scores was examined using Kendall's Tau-B correlation, with correlations below 0.30 considered weak, between 0.30 and 0.50 moderate and those above 0.50 strong (indicating that instruments were measuring similar constructs). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify shared underlying constructs.
resultsA total of 1509 participants (aged 18-86 years) were included in the analysis. Convergent validity between dimensions/items of different instruments was weak to moderate. A 5-factor EFA solution, representing 'daytime dysfunction', 'fatigue', 'wellbeing', 'physical health', and 'perceived sleep quality', was simplest with close fit and fewest cross-loadings. Each instrument's dimensions/items primarily loaded onto their own factor, except for the EQ-5D-5L and PSQI. Nearly two-thirds of salient loadings were of excellent magnitude (0.72 to 0.91).
conclusionModerate overlap between the constructs assessed by generic and sleep-specific instruments indicates that neither can fully capture the complexity of QoL alone in general disordered sleep populations. Therefore, both are required within economic evaluations. A combination of the EQ-5D-5L and, depending on context, ESS or PSQI offers the broadest measurement of QoL in evaluating sleep health interventions.
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.