Dataset Information

Mapping of the World Health Organization's Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 to disability weights using the Multi-Country Survey Study on Health and Responsiveness.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To develop and test an internationally applicable mapping function for converting WHODAS-2.0 scores to disability weights, thereby enabling WHODAS-2.0 to be used in cost-utility analyses and sectoral decision-making.

Methods

Data from 14 countries were used from the WHO Multi-Country Survey Study on Health and Responsiveness, administered among nationally representative samples of respondents aged 18+ years who were non-institutionalized and living in private households. For the combined total of 92,006 respondents, available WHODAS-2.0 items (for both 36-item and 12-item versions) were mapped onto disability weight estimates using a machine learning approach, whereby data were split into separate training and test sets; cross-validation was used to compare the performance of different regression and penalized regression models. Sensitivity analyses considered different imputation strategies and compared overall model performance with that of country-specific models.

Results

Mapping functions converted WHODAS-2.0 scores into disability weights; R-squared values of 0.700-0.754 were obtained for the test data set. Penalized regression models reached comparable performance to standard regression models but with fewer predictors. Imputation had little impact on model performance. Model performance of the generic model on country-specific test sets was comparable to model performance of country-specific models.

Conclusions

Disability weights can be generated with good accuracy using WHODAS 2.0 scores, including in national settings where health state valuations are not directly available, which signifies the utility of WHODAS as an outcome measure in evaluative studies that express intervention benefits in terms of QALYs gained.

SUBMITTER: Lokkerbol J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8412228 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveMapping algorithms can be used for estimating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when studies apply non-preference-based instruments. In this study, we estimate a regression-based algorithm for mapping between the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) and the preference-based instrument SF-6D to obtain preference estimates usable in health economic evaluations. This was done separately for the working and non-working populations, as WHODAS 2.0 discriminates between these groups when estimating scores.MethodsUsing a dataset including 2258 participants from the general Swedish population, we estimated the statistical relationship between SF-6D and WHODAS 2.0. We applied three regression methods, i.e., ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized linear models (GLM), and Tobit, in mapping onto SF-6D from WHODAS 2.0 at the overall-score and domain levels. Root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) were used for validation of the models; R2 was used to assess model fit.ResultsThe best-performing models for both the working and non-working populations were GLM models with RMSE ranging from 0.084 to 0.088, MAE ranging from 0.068 to 0.071, and R2 ranging from 0.503 to 0.608. When mapping from the WHODAS 2.0 overall score, the preferred model also included sex for both the working and non-working populations. When mapping from the WHODAS 2.0 domain level, the preferred model for the working population included the domains mobility, household activities, work/study activities, and sex. For the non-working population, the domain-level model included the domains mobility, household activities, participation, and education.ConclusionsIt is possible to apply the derived mapping algorithms for health economic evaluations in studies using WHODAS 2.0. As conceptual overlap is incomplete, we recommend using the domain-based algorithms over the overall score. Different algorithms must be applied depending on whether the population is working or non-working, due to the characteristics of WHODAS 2.0.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12-item survey (WHODAS-12) is a questionnaire developed by the WHO to measure functioning across health conditions, cultures, and settings. WHODAS-12 consists of a subset of the 36 items of WHODAS-2.0 36-item questionnaire. Little is known about the minimal important difference (MID) of WHODAS-12 in persons with chronic low back pain (LBP), which would be useful to determine whether rehabilitation improves functioning to an extent that is meaningful for people experiencing the condition. Our objective was to estimate an anchor-based MID for WHODAS-12 questionnaire in persons with chronic LBP.MethodsWe analyzed data from two cohort studies (identified in our previous systematic review) conducted in Europe that measured functioning using the WHODAS-36 in adults with chronic LBP. Eligible participants were adults with chronic LBP with scores on another measure as an anchor to indicate participants with small but important changes in functioning over time [Short-form-36 Physical Functioning (SF36-PF) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)] at baseline and follow-up (study 1: 3-months post-treatment; study 2: 1-month post-discharge from hospital). WHODAS-12 scores were constructed as sums of the 12 items (scored 0-4), with possible scores ranging from 0 to 48. We calculated the mean WHODAS-12 score in participants who achieved a small but meaningful improvement on SF36-PF or ODI at follow-up. A meaningful improvement was an MID of 4-16 on ODI or 5-16 on SF36-PF.ResultsOf 70 eligible participants in study 1 (mean age = 54.1 years, SD = 14.7; 69% female), 18 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on SF-36 PF. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 3.22/48 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64). Of 89 eligible participants in study 2 (mean age = 65.5 years, SD = 11.5; 61% female), 50 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on ODI. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 5.99/48 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79).ConclusionsUsing an anchor-based approach, the MID of WHODAS-12 is estimated at -3.22 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64) or -5.99 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79) in adults with chronic LBP. These MID values inform the utility of WHODAS-12 in measuring functioning to determine whether rehabilitation or other health services achieve a minimal difference that is meaningful to patients with chronic LBP.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, the leading cause of years lived with disability is low back pain (LBP). Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is responsible for most of the cost and disability associated with LBP. This is more devastating in low income countries, particularly in rural Nigeria with one of the greatest global burdens of LBP. No Igbo back pain specific measure captures remunerative or non-remunerative work outcomes. Disability measurement using these tools may not fully explain work-related disability and community participation, a limitation not evident in the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt the WHODAS 2.0 and validate it in rural and urban Nigerian populations with CLBP.MethodsTranslation, cultural adaptation, test-retest, and cross-sectional psychometric testing was performed. WHODAS 2.0 was forward and back translated by clinical/non-clinical translators. Expert review committee evaluated the translations. Twelve people with CLBP in a rural Nigerian community piloted/pre-tested the questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha assessing internal consistency; intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots assessing test-retest reliability; and minimal detectable change were investigated in a convenience sample of 50 adults with CLBP in rural and urban Nigeria. Construct validity was examined using Spearman's correlation analyses with the back-performance scale, Igbo Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and eleven-point box scale; and exploratory factor analysis in a random sample of 200 adults with CLBP in rural Nigeria. Ceiling and floor effects were investigated in both samples.ResultsPatient instructions were also translated. 'Waist pain/lower back pain' was added to 'illness(es)' to make the measure relevant for this study whilst allowing for future studies involving other conditions. The Igbo phrase for 'family and friends' was used to better represent 'people close to you' in item D4.3. The Igbo-WHODAS had good internal consistency (α = 0.75-0.97); intra class correlation coefficients (ICC = 0.81-0.93); standard error of measurements (5.05-11.10) and minimal detectable change (13.99-30.77). Igbo-WHODAS correlated moderately with performance-based disability, self-reported back pain-specific disability and pain intensity, with a seven-factor structure and no floor and ceiling effects.ConclusionsIgbo-WHODAS appears psychometrically sound. Its research and clinical utility require further testing.

Project description:IntroductionThere has been limited study of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients at risk of limb loss. Our primary objective was to estimate the prevalence of disability in this patient population using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0).Materials and methodsWe recruited patients referred to a limb-preservation clinic. Patients self-reported their disability status using the 12-domain WHODAS 2.0. Severity of disability in each domain was scored from 1 = none to 5 = extreme and the total normalized to a 100-point scale (total score ≥25 = clinically significant disability). We also asked patients about wound-specific concerns and wound-related discomfort or distress.ResultsWe included 162 patients. Reasons for clinic referral included arterial-insufficient (37.4%), postoperative (25.9%), and mixed etiology (10.8%) wounds. The mean WHODAS 2.0 disability score was 35.0 (standard deviation = 16.0). One-hundred-and-nineteen (73.5%) patients had clinically significant disability. Patients reported they had the greatest difficulty walking a long distance (mean score = 4.2), standing for long periods of time (mean score = 3.6), taking care of household responsibilities (mean score = 2.7), and dealing with the emotional impact of their health problems (mean score = 2.5). In the two-weeks prior to presentation, 87 (52.7%) patients expressed concern over their wound(s) and 90 (55.6%) suffered a moderate amount or great deal of wound-related discomfort or distress. In adjusted ordinary least squares regression models, although WHODAS 2.0 disability scores varied with changes in wound volume (p = 0.03) and total revised photographic wound assessment tool scores (p<0.001), the largest decrease in disability severity was seen in patients with less wound-specific concerns and wound-related discomfort and distress.DiscussionThe majority of people at risk of limb loss report suffering a substantial burden of disability, pain, and wound-specific concerns. Research is needed to further evaluate the WHODAS 2.0 in a multicenter fashion among these patients and determine whether care and interventions may improve their PROs.

Project description:Huntington's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that usually manifests in adulthood and is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. The main aim of the study was to assess the psychometric properties of the 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in studying the level of disability in people with Huntington's disease. This is a cross-sectional study that covered 128 people with Huntington's disease living in Poland. We examined scale score reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, and known-group validity. The disability and quality of life of people with Huntington's disease were also assessed. The scale score reliability of the entire tool for the research group was high. The Cronbach's α test result for the whole scale was 0.97. Cronbach's α for individual domains ranged from 0.95 to 0.79. Time consistency for the overall result was 0.99 and for particular domains ranged from 0.91 to 0.99, which confirmed that the scale was consistent over time. All of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 domains negatively correlated with all of the Huntington Quality of Life Instrument (H-QoL-I) domains. All correlation coefficients were statistically significant at the level of p < 0.001. The results obtained in the linear regression model showed that with each subsequent point of decrease in BMI the level of disability increases by an average of 0.83 points on the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 scale. With each subsequent year of the disease, the level of disability increases by an average of 1.39 points. This is the first study assessing disability by means of the WHODAS 2.0 in the HD patient population in Poland, and it is also one of the few studies evaluating the validity of the WHODAS 2.0 scale in assessing the disability of people with HD in accordance with the recommendations of DSM-5 (R). We have confirmed that the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 is an effective tool for assessing disability and changes in functioning among people with Huntington's disease.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of digital technologies within health care rapidly increased as services transferred to web-based platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inequalities in digital health across the domains of equity are not routinely examined; yet, the long-term integration of digitally delivered services needs to consider such inequalities to ensure equitable benefits.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to map inequities in access, use, and engagement with digital health technologies across equity domains.MethodsWe searched 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, ASSIA, PsycINFO, and Scopus) for quantitative and mixed methods reviews and meta-analyses published between January 2016 and May 2022. Reviews were limited to those that included studies from the World Health Organization's European region. Extracted data were mapped against Cochrane's PROGRESS PLUS (place of residence, race, ethnicity, culture, and language, occupation, gender and sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital, and other characteristics) dimensions of equity.ResultsIn total, 404 unique citations were identified from the searches, and 2 citations were identified from other sources. After eligibility assessment, 22 reviews were included. Consistent evidence was found showing higher access to digital health technologies among patients who were of White ethnicity, were English speaking, and had no disability. There were no reviews that explored differences in access to digital health care by age, gender and sex, occupation, education, or homeless or substance misuse. Higher use of digital health technologies was observed among populations that were White, English speaking, younger, with a higher level of education, of higher economic status, and residents in urban areas. No clear evidence of differences in the use of digital technologies by occupation, gender and sex, disability, or homeless or substance misuse was found, nor was clear evidence found in the included reviews on inequalities in the engagement with digital technologies. Finally, no reviews were identified that explored differences by place of residence.ConclusionsDespite awareness of the potential impact of inequalities in digital health, there are important evidence gaps across multiple equity domains. The development of a common framework for evaluating digital health equity in new health initiatives and consistency in reporting findings is needed.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is a generic instrument for the assessment of functioning in six domains, resulting in a total health-related disability score. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Swedish-language version of the self-rated 36-item version in psychiatric outpatients with various common psychiatric diagnoses using Rasch analysis. A secondary aim was to explore the correlation between two methods of calculating overall scores to guide clinical practice: the WHODAS simple (summative) model and the WHODAS complex (weighted) model.MethodsCross-sectional data from 780 Swedish patients with various mental disorders were evaluated by Rasch analysis according to the partial credit model. Bivariate Pearson correlations between the two methods of calculating overall scores were explored.ResultsOf the 36 items, 97% (35 items) were within the recommended range of infit mean square; only item D4.5 (Sexual activities) indicated misfit (infit mean square 1.54 logits). Rating scale analysis showed a short distance between severity levels and disordered thresholds. The two methods of calculating overall scores were highly correlated (0.89-0.99).ConclusionsThe self-administered WHODAS 2.0 fulfilled several aspects of validity according to Rasch analysis and has the potential to be a useful tool for the assessment of functioning in psychiatric outpatients. The internal structure of the instrument was satisfactorily valid and reliable at the level of the total score but demonstrated problems at the domain level. We suggest rephrasing the item Sexual activities and revising the rating scale categories. The WHODAS simple model is easier to use in clinical practice and our results indicate that it can differentiate function among patients with moderate psychiatric disability, whereas Rasch scaled scores are psychometrically more precise even at low disability levels. Further investigations of different scoring models are warranted.