ArticleBMJ open2025
Assessing the sensibility, utility and implementation considerations of the Episodic Disability Questionnaire with older adults living with complex health needs: a cross-sectional measurement study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Episodic Disability Questionnaire (EDQ) was developed to measure the presence, severity and episodic nature of disability experienced among persons with chronic conditions. Our aim was to assess the sensibility, utility and implementation considerations of the EDQ among older adults with complex health needs.
designCross-sectional measurement study involving quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection.
participantsWe recruited community-dwelling older adults (65 years of age or older) living with complex health needs receiving care from a primary healthcare team in Toronto, Canada.
methodsWe administered the EDQ, sensibility questionnaire (assessing face and content validity, and ease of usage, with each item scored from 0 to 7 with greater scores indicating greater sensibility) and demographic questionnaire, followed by a semi-structured interview in the home or clinical setting. Using an interview guide, we asked participants about their perspectives on utility, format and implementation of the EDQ in clinical practice. We considered the EDQ sensible if the median score on the sensibility questionnaire was ≥5/7 for ≥80% of items and if none of the items had a median score of ≤3/7. We conducted a team-based directed content analysis of the interview transcripts.
resultsThe median age of the 11 participants in this study was 83 years of age. All participants reported living with two or more chronic health conditions, with osteoarthritis (n=5) and diabetes (n=4) most frequently reported. The EDQ met the criterion for sensibility as measured by the sensibility questionnaire. Interview data from participants (n=10) indicated that the EDQ represents the health-related challenges among this sample of older adults with complex health needs, captures the episodic nature of disability and was easy to use. Utility of the EDQ included providing clinicians with a holistic understanding of health challenges older adults face, aiding in intervention planning and measuring changes in disability over time. Six of the participants also expressed uncertainty as to how the EDQ specifically could be used by clinicians in their care. Considerations for implementation included mode of administration (paper or electronic) and the importance of communicating EDQ scores with older adults based on individual preferences.
conclusionsThe EDQ possesses sensibility and utility for use among this sample of older adults living with complex health needs in home or clinical care settings.
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.