The use of EQ-5D-5L as a patient-reported outcome measure in evaluating community rehabilitation services in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics and health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients accessing community rehabilitation services in Alberta, Canada, using routinely collected EQ-5D-5L data, and explore factors associated with the impact of these services. METHODS: A retrospective, longitudinal, observational design was used. Patients completed the EQ-5D-5L and demographic questions at intake and end of rehabilitation care. Change in EQ-5D-5L dimensions from intake until end of rehabilitation was examined using the Pareto Classification of Health Change. Change scores were calculated for the EQ-5D-5L index, VAS, and total sum scores. Change groups in the EQ-5D-5L index and VAS scores, were defined by minimally important differences of 0.04 and 7.0, respectively. One level change was considered important for the total sum score. Effect size of the change in index, VAS, and total sum scores was also examined. Chi-squared tests were conducted to examine whether change in EQ-5D-5L varied by age, gender, region, and having anxiety/depression at intake. RESULTS: Three service programs were examined; pulmonary rehabilitation (n = 542), group-based community exercise (n = 463), and physiotherapy for bone and joint care (n = 391). At intake, HRQL in all programs was lower than that of the general Alberta population norms and improved by end of rehabilitation. The mean (SD) change in index, VAS, and total sum scores were 0.02 (0.13), 6.0 (18.3), and - 0.5 (2.4) in pulmonary rehabilitation, 0.06 (0.13), 6.6 (18.7), - 1.2 (2.4) in community exercise, and 0.13 (0.16), 1.2 (0.9), and - 2.8 (2.8) in physiotherapy, respectively. Based on change of the index score, 24% deteriorated, 38% improved, and 38% had no change in pulmonary rehabilitation; 17% deteriorated, 51% improved, and 32% had no change in community exercise; 5% deteriorated, 72% improved, and 23% had no change in physiotherapy. Similar trends were seen in the VAS and total sum scores. Older age, urban region, and having anxiety/depression at intake were associated with positive change in EQ-5D-5L. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are intended to inform program/service level decisions by describing the characteristics and HRQL of patients accessing community rehabilitation, as well as the predictors of change in health status, which will help direct future program growth and service changes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".