ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
The feasibility and validity of the EQ-5D-Y and CHU9D in a challenging context: adolescent mental health in India.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOutcome measurement and economic evaluation in mental health are increasingly conducted in challenging contexts, including for young people, in low- and middle-income countries, and outside of the healthcare system. This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and content validity of two key preference-based measures (the EQ-5D-Y-3L and CHU9D) in such a context in India. METHODOLOGY: Ten cognitive interviews with semi-structured follow-up discussions and 164 surveys were conducted with adolescents in Indian schools. Coding of the cognitive interviews and semi-structured follow-up discussions was conducted to identify completion challenges. The surveys contained both instruments and open-ended follow-up questions, and were analysed to further explore the feasibility, acceptability, and content validity of the instruments.
resultsError rates were higher for the EQ-5D-Y-3L than for the CHU9D in the cognitive interviews, principally due to the ‘Having pain or discomfort’ item, and difficulty in reporting what occurred ‘today’. A lower proportion of adolescents completed the full EQ-5D-Y-3L instrument in the surveys. The CHU9D was the more preferred instrument by participants for reasons including having more relevant content, particularly regarding mental and psychological health, and more response options. However, some participants indicated neither instrument covered all important aspects of their quality-of-life, including social interactions, education, and material circumstances.
conclusionsResearchers might prioritise the CHU9D as an instrument for measuring quality-of-life in school-going Indian adolescents. However, the measure was not without limitations, and careful attention should be paid to understanding age- and country-specific factors that pose challenges to its usage in economic evaluations.
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.