Algumas considerações acerca do uso e aplicação de medidas de qualidade de vida associada à saúde, com ênfase em estudos sobre sobreviventes de câncer na infância e adolescência em países em desenvolvimento
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) have become widely available in developed countries such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Such measures, instruments or questionnaires need to undergo translation processes, validation and cultural adaptation in order to be used in other countries and in other languages. The utilization of measures developed in settings other than the originating ones poses several challenges, including the appropriateness of the translation and of the cross-cultural adaptation and adequate validation process. Preference-based or preference-weighted utilities for health states have an important role in measurement and in economic evaluation regarding a wide range of conditions, such as childhood cancer and survivorship. Some attempts have been made to create and apply preference-based HRQoL indexes to young populations, such as children, adolescents and young adults. Use of proxy respondents is an issue for studying HRQoL in these groups, especially children. This review aims at providing a critical evaluation of the use of preferencebased HRQoL measures in developing countries, focusing on the Health Utilities Index, Mark 2 and Mark 3, commonly called HUI2 and HUI3, and their application to survivors of childhood cancer in Latin America. The process researchers undertake, especially in regards to the use of already translated instruments is discussed. The appropriateness of the instruments is also assessed and focus is on the attributes of the instrument and the population, the cultural aspects and the use of proxy respondents. Finally, the adequateness of other commonly used preference-based instruments for childhood cancer is discussed. This critical assessment could benefit future work in the area of health-related quality of life, especially guiding those interested in the trans-cultural use of existing generic preference-based HRQoL instruments.
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 | 0.067 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".