ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Reporting heterogeneity and health measurement bias in older adults: nationwide cross-sectional 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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo examine reporting heterogeneity in self-rated health (SRH) among middle-aged and older adults using anchoring vignettes, and evaluate the impact of reporting heterogeneity on further measures of health inequalities.
methodsData on a sample of 13,323 respondents aged 45 years and over from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) were used. An ordered probit model and the hierarchical ordered probit (HOPIT) model were used to compare the estimated differences in pre- and post-adjusted SRH, and the concentration index was applied to measure health inequalities.
resultsAfter correcting for reporting heterogeneity, the health advantage of these middle-aged and older adults was further expanded to varying degrees, and those living in urban areas had better health compared to those living in rural areas (β = 0.057, P = 0.046). In addition, respondents with a high school education or higher and in urban areas use a lower cut-off point when rating a given health condition as poor and a higher cut-off point when rating a given health condition as good. Significant increases in the inequalities in SRH between urban and rural areas and across regions after adjustment for reporting heterogeneity. In comparison to urban areas, the trend that higher SRH was more concentrated among the better educated is more pronounced in rural areas.
conclusionThese findings highlight the importance of addressing reporting heterogeneity in SRH to ensure equitable healthcare interventions and resource allocation, particularly to underserved regions and populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40131684What 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.