Inequalities in Health Status from EQ-5D Findings: A Cross-Sectional Study in Low-Income Communities of Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measuring health status by using standardized and validated instrument has become a growing concern over the past few decades throughout the developed and developing countries. The aim of the study was to investigate the overall self-reported health status along with potential inequalities by using EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) instrument among low-income people of Bangladesh. METHODS: A cross-sectional household survey was conducted in Chandpur district of Bangladesh. Bangla version of the EQ-5D questionnaire was employed along with socio-demographic information. EQ-5D questionnaire composed of 2-part measurements: EQ-5D descriptive system and the visual analogue scale (VAS). For measuring health status, UK-based preference weights were applied while higher score indicated better health status. For facilitating the consistency with EQ-5D score, VASs were converted to a scale with scores ranging from 0 to 1. Multiple logistic regression models were also employed to examine differences among EQ-5D dimensions. RESULTS: A total of 1433 respondents participated in the study. The mean EQ-5D and VAS score was 0.76 and 0.77, respectively. The females were more likely to report any problem than the males (P < 0.001). Compared to the younger, elderly were more than 2-3 times likely to report any health problem in all EQ-5D dimensions (OR [odds ratio] = 3.17 for mobility, OR = 3.24 for self-care). However, the respondents of the poorest income group were significantly suffered more from every EQ-5D dimension than the richest income quintile. CONCLUSION: Socio-economic and demographic inequalities in health status was observed in the study. Study suggests to do further investigation with country representative sample to measure the inequalities of overall health status. It would be helpful for policy-maker to find a new way aiming to reduce such inequalities.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
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.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".