Impact of secondary health conditions on the quality of life and wellbeing of Canadians living with spinal cord injury: A comparison of preference-weighted index scores derived from generic standardized instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT/OBJECTIVES: To compare the assessment of the impact of secondary health conditions (SHCs) on the quality of life and wellbeing of Canadians living with spinal cord injury (SCI) using four preference-based outcome measures. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional, online survey. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults (n = 364) living with traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury at least one year post-injury (70% at least 10 years post-injury). OUTCOME MEASURES: A modified version of the Spinal Cord Injury Secondary Conditions Scale (SCI-SCS); three health-related instruments (EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), and the Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimension questionnaire (AQoL-8D)) and a capability wellbeing instrument (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A)). RESULTS: Across unadjusted and controlled analyses (i.e. controlling for associations between index scores and sociodemographic and impairment characteristics), trends were observed that identified lower levels of quality of life/wellbeing with higher problem ratings for each of the SHCs. Despite the trends, there was considerable variation in mean index scores across instruments, with HUI3 scores the lowest of the health-related instruments and ICECAP-A scores the highest overall. Respiratory problems, depression/mood problems, pressure sores, and autonomic dysreflexia were associated with the lowest levels of quality of life and wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: merits of preference-based instruments when using (or considering using) these instruments/estimates in comparative effectiveness research and economic evaluation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".