ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2026
Qualitative testing of potential modifications to the EQ-HWB-9 in the United Kingdom.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Experimental EQ Health and Wellbeing 9 (EQ-HWB-9) is a generic measure developed to assess the impact of health, social care and informal caregiving on quality of life. Several modifications have been proposed based on emerging evidence. This study aimed to assess the content validity of these modifications and user preferences.
methodIndividuals with a long-standing physical or mental health condition or disability were invited from an online panel ensuring gender balance and age coverage. Two interviewers conducted semi-structured cognitive interviews to assess comprehensibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness of the modified experimental EQ-HWB-9 v1.2. Participants' views on differences between the modified and original experimental versions, as well as their preferences, were explored. Interviews were conducted via videoconferencing, recorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework analysis was used to code interviews, with themes drawn from the literature and data.
resultsTwenty-six interviews were completed. Half the participants were female; participant age ranged from 24 to 68 years. Six of the nine items ('activities', 'exhausted', 'lonely', 'difficulty concentrating/thinking clearly', 'anxious', 'sad/depressed') were understood as intended by all participants. Some comprehension issues arose with the 'mobility' and 'pain_severity' items. Participants generally preferred the modified version, though a clear majority was not always observed. Justifications focused on item appropriateness, readability and distress. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionAs a generic measure, EQ-HWB-9 v1.2 performed well for comprehension, relevance and comprehensiveness. Modifications were well accepted and, except for the use of item stem, preferred over the original version. These findings will be combined with other international evidence to support finalising the instrument.
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.