ArticlePloS one2024
Validation of an ultra-short global quality of life scale in a large population-based health survey.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discrimination experiences and their associations with sociodemographic factors, health and quality of life-a latent class analysis.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
- Violence exposure and quality of life among partners and parents of individuals with substance use problems.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Child maltreatment and substance use: associations with alcohol use, nicotine use, and quality of life in a Norwegian population sample.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Relationship Between Quality of Reproductive Life and Semen Quality: The Moderating Roles of Social Support and Fertility Stress.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionQuality of life (QoL) assessment is essential in health-related research and clinical settings, offering insights into individuals' well-being and functioning. This study validated the Essential QoL-3 (EQoL-3), an ultra-short scale assessing essential dimensions of QoL, for use in epidemiological research and clinical settings.
methodsData from a 2021 national survey in Norway (N = 17,487) were used. Three items on the EQoL-3 assess life satisfaction, happiness, and meaningfulness on a 0-10 scale. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the EQoL-3 with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and by examining latent mean differences between individuals with adverse life experiences (ALE+) and those without such experiences (ALE-). Convergent validity was evaluated through latent regression analyses comparing the EQoL-3 with a perceived mastery scale and a mental distress scale.
resultsThe discriminant validity of the EQoL-3 was less than optimal when compared with the SWLS. Nonetheless, a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the EQoL-3 score was 1.42 (95% CI = 1.33-1.50, p < 0.001) lower in the ALE+ group compared to the ALE- group, providing support for discriminant validity. Convergent validity was established with a positive association between EQoL-3 and mastery (β = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.70-1.80, p < 0.001) and a negative association between the EQoL-3 and mental distress (β = -2.64, 95% CI = -2.71/-2.59, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe EQoL-3 is a reliable measure of QoL. Its streamlined nature facilitates quick administration, making it a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers in diverse settings. Its inclusion of the eudaimonic dimension, as well as its exclusion of health items in the measure itself, distinguishes it from traditional HQoL measures, making it suitable for mental health and substance use disorder research.
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.