ArticleBMC psychology2025
Evaluating quality of life and well-being of university students, with the EQ5D-5L, the WHO-5 Well-Being Index, and the ICECAP-A questionnaires to gain baseline data.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsThe study objective was to fill the gap in understanding of students' quality of life and well-being by evaluating well-being from a traditional perspective with the World Health Organization's General Well-being Scale and a capability perspective ICECAP-A (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults); quality of life was assessed with the EQ-5D-5 L (EuroQol instrument) to gain norms for this population.
methodsIn our cross-sectional study, we applied the validated Hungarian version of internationally recognised instruments: WHO-5 Well-Being Index, ICECAP-A, and the EQ-5D-5 L. In total, 561 university students completed the online survey.
resultsThe mean WHO-5 Well-Being Index was 42.62 (Std. Error 0.869) higher scores representing better well-being; ICECAP-A score was 0.441 (Std. Error 0.008) on a scale where 0 equals to "no-capability" and 1 corresponds to "full-capability". The average EQ-5D-5 L index score was 0.846 (Std. Error 0.008) on a scale where 0 equals death and 1 corresponds to "perfect quality of life" should be repéased by: best possible health. The low/bad results gained in both aspects align with previous evidence coming from academically demanding fields. Chronic physical conditions showed minimal influence on outcomes.
conclusionThe study presents a comprehensive baseline assessment to provide norms for university students of quality of life and well-being studying health and biomedical sciences. ICECAP-A provided a broader capability-based perspective, supporting its future use in economic evaluations of interventions. These baseline data support the need for targeted support strategies and can inform future evaluations of intervention cost-effectiveness and resource allocation in academic and public health contexts. Our results should have broader implications across academic settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.