ArticlePeerJ2026
Mapping quality of life in Norway: psychometric evaluation and network analysis of 15,148 responses from a public health study.
Article in PeerJ, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Norwegian Quality of Life Study (NQoLS) was established to inform public health policy by assessing self-reported health (SRH) and quality of life (QoL) outcomes across the general population, identifying factors that influence these outcomes, and highlighting vulnerable groups. In this study, we assessed the psychometric properties of the NQoLS measures and applied network analysis to explore the structural relationships among outcome variables. Methods: The 2022 NQoLS is a cross-sectional study that included 15,148 adults from the general adult Norwegian population. No exclusion criteria were specified beyond the requirement that participants have a registered address, email, and/or phone number. The study assessed SRH and QoL through single- and multi-item measures across physical, psychological, and social domains. The psychometric evaluation included descriptive statistics, reliability testing, confirmatory factor analysis, and correlation analysis, followed by a network analysis to map how outcomes connect and cluster. Results: Measures generally demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. Model fit for multi-item scales was generally adequate following minor modifications. Network analysis identified a central cluster, including the Satisfaction with life scale, Hopkins Symptom Checklist-5, and Satisfaction with psychological health. These indicators were highly connected and structurally central. In contrast, physical health variables, including Satisfaction with physical health, Pain and discomfort, and General health, were more weakly connected and positioned at the network periphery. The sensitivity analysis, stratified by language preference, yielded results consistent with those of the entire sample. Conclusions: The NQoLS provides a foundation for mapping SRH and QoL. Most measures worked well, though a few could be fine-tuned for a better fit and sensitivity. Based on our assessment and the structure revealed by the network analysis, physical health appears to be relatively underrepresented in the current survey, suggesting a potential area for future enhancement.
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.