MétaCan
← all works

A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments

2001· article· en· 474 citations· W2148103249 on OpenAlex· 10.3109/07853890109002090

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

About CanadaIts subject is Canada, wherever its authors sit.

No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame — the usual design — would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Machine scores (provisional)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Opus teacher head0.750
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread
0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Abstract

As part of the validation of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument comparisons were made between five multiattribute utility (MAU) instruments, each purporting to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL). These were the AQoL, the Canadian Health Utilities Index (HUI) 3, the Finnish 15D, the EQ-5D (formerly the EuroQoL) and the SF6D (derived from the SF-36). The paper compares absolute utility scores, instrument sensitivity, and incremental differences in measured utility between different instruments predicted by different individuals. The AQoL predicted utilities are similar to those from the HUI3 and EQ-5D. By contrast the 15D and SF6D predict systematically higher utilities, and the differences between individuals are significantly smaller. There is some evidence that the AQoL has greater sensitivity to health states than other instruments. It is concluded that at present no single MAU instrument can claim to be the 'gold standard', and that researchers should select an instrument sensitive to the health states they are investigating. Caution should be exercised in treating any of the instrument scores as representing a trade-off between length of life and HRQoL.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

The record

Venue
Annals of Medicine
Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Field
Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Canadian institutions
Funders
Keywords
Quality of life (healthcare)Quality-adjusted life yearIndex (typography)Health Utilities IndexEQ-5DQuality (philosophy)Cost–utility analysisMeasure (data warehouse)Health related quality of lifeMedicineCost effectivenessComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Data mining
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes