Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40381096›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025

How well do participants understand the questions asked in the Online Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) approach? A cognitive debrief of the EQ-HWB-S (EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version) valuation.

Tessa Peasgood, Nancy Devlin, Kristina Ludwig, Ole Marten, Emily McDool, Paul Schneider, Koonal Shah, Clara Mukuria

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Tessa PeasgoodSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. T.Peasgood@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8024-7801
Nancy DevlinSchool of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1561-5361
Kristina LudwigSchool of Public Health, Universitat Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4306-4667
Ole MartenSchool of Public Health, Universitat Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2576-9110
Emily McDoolSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3530-7921
Paul SchneiderValorem Health, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3552-1087
Koonal ShahNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4927-7858
Clara MukuriaSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4318-1481

Funding

EuroQol Research Foundation EQ Project 1508-RA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOnline elicitation of Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) is an innovative approach to valuing health states. OPUF uses a combination of ranking, swing-weighting, levels-rating and anchoring dead tasks. Little is known about how participants interpret and engage with OPUF tasks. This study aimed to address this gap.

methodCognitive debrief interviews, which included 'think-aloud' and probing questions, were undertaken in the UK to understand how members of the public engage with OPUF when used to value the EQ-HWB-S (EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version). Coding drew upon a Framework approach, with final codes including an assessment of how participants engaged with each of the five OPUF tasks based on whether (1) they completed as expected, (2) minor concerns were identified or (3) major concerns were identified. The presence of major concerns was judged to undermine the validity of responses.

resultsAll 27 interviews were identified to have at least minor concern and 18 (67%) were identified as having major concerns. Major concerns were identified in four of the tasks: ranking (in 19% of interviews), swing-weighting (30%), levels-rating (56%), anchoring dead task (48%). Older participants were more likely to have major errors.

conclusionThink-aloud and probing interviews with 27 participants completing the OPUF identified multiple concerns, to the extent that their data is unlikely to be a valid reflection of their preferences. The extent of concerns identified here suggests the need for interviewer led data collection within OPUF to ensure data quality.

Indexed as

ComprehensionHealth StatusQuality of LifeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCognitionFemaleHumansInternetInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomCognitive debriefEQ-HWB-SInterviewOnline data collectionOnline elicitation of Personal Utility Functions (OPUF)Think-aloudValuation health

Identifiers

PMID40381096
PMCPMC12274140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.