ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Content and face validity of preference-based quality of life instruments in indigenous youth experiencing mental health problems: a qualitative study.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptation of the Good Spirit, Good Life quality of life tool for remote Indigenous Australians.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Engaging Underserved Populations in Health Preference Research: Challenges and Strategies.The patient · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMainstream preference-based quality of life (QoL) measures have been traditionally based on Western principles of health. It is critical to examine whether existing preference-based QoL measures capture what is important to Indigenous people while being comprehensive and culturally acceptable. This study aims to assess the content and face validity of the EuroQol-5 dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5 L), 12-item short form survey (SF-12), assessment of quality of life-6 dimensions (AQoL-6D), and recovering quality of life 10-item (ReQoL-10) within the context of indigenous youth mental health.
methodsEight individual yarns and five yarning circles were conducted with 20 indigenous young people aged 15-25 years, with a history of at least 1 mental health problem in the Perth and Bunbury regions of Western Australia. The measures were explored in random order using the yarning approach, and then ranked by relevance by participants. Data were analysed using thematic and constant comparative approaches.
resultsThe face and content validity of each preference-based QoL instrument was summarised into four themes: (1) appropriateness, (2) comprehensiveness, (3) comprehensibility, and (4) layout and format. The ReQoL-10 emerged as a more suitable measure due to its mental health focus, clear response options, and well-designed layout and format. While some positive comments were made about the other measures, there were critical issues around their content and face validity. Our data revealed a clear preference for the ReQoL.
conclusionThe ReQoL-10 appears to be a promising measure in the context of indigenous youth mental health, and was explicitly preferred by indigenous youth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39690308What 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.