Assessing the sensibility, utility and implementation considerations of the Episodic Disability Questionnaire with older adults living with complex health needs: a cross-sectional measurement study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Episodic Disability Questionnaire (EDQ) was developed to measure the presence, severity and episodic nature of disability experienced among persons with chronic conditions. Our aim was to assess the sensibility, utility and implementation considerations of the EDQ among older adults with complex health needs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional measurement study involving quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited community-dwelling older adults (65 years of age or older) living with complex health needs receiving care from a primary healthcare team in Toronto, Canada. METHODS: We administered the EDQ, sensibility questionnaire (assessing face and content validity, and ease of usage, with each item scored from 0 to 7 with greater scores indicating greater sensibility) and demographic questionnaire, followed by a semi-structured interview in the home or clinical setting. Using an interview guide, we asked participants about their perspectives on utility, format and implementation of the EDQ in clinical practice. We considered the EDQ sensible if the median score on the sensibility questionnaire was ≥5/7 for ≥80% of items and if none of the items had a median score of ≤3/7. We conducted a team-based directed content analysis of the interview transcripts. RESULTS: The median age of the 11 participants in this study was 83 years of age. All participants reported living with two or more chronic health conditions, with osteoarthritis (n=5) and diabetes (n=4) most frequently reported. The EDQ met the criterion for sensibility as measured by the sensibility questionnaire. Interview data from participants (n=10) indicated that the EDQ represents the health-related challenges among this sample of older adults with complex health needs, captures the episodic nature of disability and was easy to use. Utility of the EDQ included providing clinicians with a holistic understanding of health challenges older adults face, aiding in intervention planning and measuring changes in disability over time. Six of the participants also expressed uncertainty as to how the EDQ specifically could be used by clinicians in their care. Considerations for implementation included mode of administration (paper or electronic) and the importance of communicating EDQ scores with older adults based on individual preferences. CONCLUSIONS: The EDQ possesses sensibility and utility for use among this sample of older adults living with complex health needs in home or clinical care settings.
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 | 0.027 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".