The psychometric properties of the amharic version of EuroQoL five-dimensions-five level among Ethiopian cervical cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite being a widely used generic measure of health-related quality of life worldwide, there is limited evidence on the psychometric properties of the EuroQoL Five-dimensions five level (EQ-5D) among cervical cancer patients in Ethiopia. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate psychometric properties of the Amharic version of EQ-5D among Ethiopian cervical cancer patients. METHODS: A longitudinal survey of cervical cancer patients receiving treatment at two Ethiopian tertiary care facilities was conducted from March 2022 to July 2023. Participants completed the EQ-5D and the European Organization for Research and Therapy of Cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline and after three months on treatment. Effect size and standardized response mean were used to assess responsiveness. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Minimal detectable change (MDC) ratios were computed at the individual and group levels. Statistical significance was determined at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-one patients completed the survey at baseline and follow-up with a mean age of 49.72 (10.80) years. The majority (268,73%) of the patients had early-stage cancer. The EQ-5D index and EQ VAS scores respectively improved by 0.04 and 7.0 post-treatment.The physical domains of EORTC QLQ-C30 had showed high correlation with physical dimensions of EQ-5D (r > 0.6) and the instrument showed good discriminate validity between patients with different health states. The effect size ranged between - 0.12 and 0.60 for the EQ-5D index value and - 0.12 to 1.16 for the EQ VAS, indicating small to large responsiveness. The average (range) MCID value of the EQ-5D index was 0.10-0.15. The findings showed that MCID to MDC ratios at the group level were more clinically meaningful than the individual level. CONCLUSION: The EQ-5D effectively detected changes and discriminate patients with different levels of health. While group-level MCIDs were established in this study, further studies are recommended to prove its usefulness at the individual-level.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".