Design and implementation of data quality controls in the EQ-DAPHNIE study: insights from the pilot phase and 15-country analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The EQ-DAPHNIE (EuroQol Data for Assessment of Population Health Needs and Instrument Evaluation) project is a large, multi-country survey initiative designed to generate population norms and enable comparative research using self-reported health measures. This paper describes the quality control processes and summarizes data quality metrics from the United Kingdom (UK) pilot and full implementation across 15 countries. METHODS: Representative samples were recruited via Dynata, an online survey panel provider, using quota sampling by age, sex, income, community setting, and language (where applicable). The UK pilot (n = 3012) informed survey refinements ahead of full rollout (n = 68,411). Quality metrics included completion rates, bot detection, speeding, missing data, outliers, and quota achievement. RESULTS: Across countries, response rates ranged from 80.1 to 100%, with completion rates varying widely (22.9% in Brazil to 60.8% in Japan; average 42.4%). Bot exclusions averaged 3.0%, peaking in China (11.7%). Speeding was low (0.3% average), and duplicate records were rare. Completion times ranged from 18.3 (France) to 31.4 min (New Zealand). Missing data varied substantially (0.0-48.7%), with Japan and Spain showing the least. Quota fulfillment ranged from 68.7 to 98.6%. Consistency checks showed strong agreement for repeated items-marital status (92.8-98.9%) and age (92.3-98.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The quality control measures implemented throughout the EQ-DAPHNIE project effectively addressed common issues such as bot responses, speeding, and missing data, resulting in generally high-quality and representative datasets. However, variability across countries underscores the need to account for quality indicators when using the data for norm-setting or cross-country comparisons.
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 | 0.618 | 0.502 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".