IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2022i1p277-d1013705.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validating the Well-Being of Older People (WOOP) Instrument in China

Author

Listed:
  • Runhua Liu

    (Department of Health Services Management, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550025, China
    Center of Medicine Economics and Management Research, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Zhuxin Mao

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Modelling Infectious Diseases, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Zhihao Yang

    (Department of Health Services Management, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550025, China
    Center of Medicine Economics and Management Research, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550025, China)

Abstract

Generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures have been used for estimating utility value, which is then used for calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). HRQoL measures may not capture many of the relevant and important non-health aspects of quality of life. The well-being of older people (WOOP) instrument was first developed in the Netherlands. This study aimed to validate this new instrument among older people in China. WOOP was first translated into simplified Chinese (for use in Mainland China) by two experienced translators. From July to August 2022, a cross-sectional study was conducted on a convenience sample of 500 older people in Southwestern China. Older people who provided consent reported their demographic information and completed the simplified Chinese version of the WOOP instrument using a pencil and paper. The feasibility of WOOP was determined by the percentage of missing responses. Then, using the data without any missing responses, we examined the item response distributions, pairwise Spearman correlations, underlying factors, and known-group validity of WOOP. Among the nine items of WOOP, three had more than 10% missing responses. The response distributions of the nine items were overall good without signs of ceiling and floor effects. The correlations among the WOOP items were low. A two-factor exploratory factor analysis model suggested that the WOOP items can be categorized into either internal or external well-being items. Good known-group validity results were found. Some WOOP items may not be easily understood by a small proportion of rural residents. However, other results have suggested WOOP to be a valid instrument for measuring the well-being of the elderly in China. The availability of WOOP enables the measurement of well-being-related utility.

Suggested Citation

  • Runhua Liu & Zhuxin Mao & Zhihao Yang, 2022. "Validating the Well-Being of Older People (WOOP) Instrument in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:p:277-:d:1013705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/277/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/277/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy J. Devlin & Richard Brooks, 2017. "EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 127-137, April.
    2. Fan Yang & Shan Jiang & Xiao-ning He & Hong-chao Li & Hong-yan Wu & Tian-tian Zhang & Jing Wu, 2021. "Do Rural Residents in China Understand EQ-5D-5L as Intended? Evidence From a Qualitative Study," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 101-109, March.
    3. Richard Huan Xu & Anju Devianee Keetharuth & Ling-ling Wang & Annie Wai-ling Cheung & Eliza Lai-yi Wong, 2022. "Measuring health-related quality of life and well-being: a head-to-head psychometric comparison of the EQ-5D-5L, ReQoL-UI and ICECAP-A," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(2), pages 165-176, March.
    4. Milad Karimi & John Brazier, 2016. "Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(7), pages 645-649, July.
    5. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    6. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    7. Aimin Wang & Kim Rand & Zhihao Yang & Richard Brooks & Jan Busschbach, 2022. "The remarkably frequent use of EQ-5D in non-economic research," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1007-1014, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ian Ross & Giulia Greco & Charles Opondo & Zaida Adriano & Rassul Nala & Joe Brown & Robert Dreibelbis & Oliver Cumming, 2022. "Measuring and valuing broader impacts in public health: Development of a sanitation‐related quality of life instrument in Maputo, Mozambique," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 466-480, March.
    2. McDaid, David & Park, A-La, 2023. "Making an economic argument for investment in global mental health: the case of conflict-affected refugees and displaced people," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118149, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Lien Nguyen & Hanna Jokimäki & Ismo Linnosmaa & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & Laurie Batchelder & Juliette Malley & Hui Lu & Peter Burge & Birgit Trukeschitz & Julien Forder, 2022. "Valuing informal carers’ quality of life using best-worst scaling—Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 357-374, April.
    4. Pickles, Kristen & Lancsar, Emily & Seymour, Janelle & Parkin, David & Donaldson, Cam & Carter, Stacy M., 2019. "Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    5. Guizhi Weng & Yanming Hong & Nan Luo & Clara Mukuria & Jie Jiang & Zhihao Yang & Sha Li, 2023. "Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in measuring the HRQoL burden of 4 health conditions in China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 197-207, March.
    6. Hackert, Mariska Q.N. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Hoefman, Renske J. & van Exel, Job, 2019. "Views of older people in the Netherlands on wellbeing: A Q-methodology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    7. Tom Lung & Kirsten Howard & Christopher Etherton-Beer & Moira Sim & Gill Lewin & Glenn Arendts, 2017. "Comparison of the HUI3 and the EQ-5D-3L in a nursing home setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-10, February.
    8. Lei Si & Liudan Tu & Ya Xie & Gang Chen & Mickaël Hiligsmann & Mingcan Yang & Yanli Zhang & Xi Zhang & Yutong Jiang & Qiujing Wei & Jieruo Gu & Andrew J. Palmer, 2022. "Evaluating Health Related Quality of Life in Older People at Risk of Osteoporotic Fracture: A Head-to-Head Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-6D," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 809-824, April.
    9. David G. T. Whitehurst & Nicholas R. Latimer & Aura Kagan & Rebecca Palmer & Nina Simmons-Mackie & J. Charles Victor & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2018. "Developing Accessible, Pictorial Versions of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments Suitable for Economic Evaluation: A Report of Preliminary Studies Conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 225-231, September.
    10. Hackert, Mariska Q.N. & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2020. "Well-being of Older People (WOOP): Quantitative validation of a new outcome measure for use in economic evaluations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    11. Suzi Claflin & Julie A. Campbell & Richard Norman & Deborah F. Mason & Tomas Kalincik & Steve Simpson-Yap & Helmut Butzkueven & William M. Carroll & Andrew J. Palmer & C. Leigh Blizzard & Ingrid van d, 2023. "Using the EQ-5D-5L to investigate quality-of-life impacts of disease-modifying therapy policies for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) in New Zealand," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 939-950, August.
    12. Matthew Franklin & Katherine Payne & Rachel A. Elliott, 2018. "Quantifying the Relationship between Capability and Health in Older People: Can’t Map, Won’t Map," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 79-94, January.
    13. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.
    14. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    15. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Christopher M Doran & Irina Kinchin, 2020. "Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    17. Boniface Oyugi & Olena Nizalova & Sally Kendall & Stephen Peckham, 2024. "Does a free maternity policy in Kenya work? Impact and cost–benefit consideration based on demographic health survey data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 77-89, February.
    18. Yea-Chan Lee & Da-Hye Son & Yu-Jin Kwon, 2020. "U-Shaped Association between Sleep Duration, C-Reactive Protein, and Uric Acid in Korean Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-11, April.
    19. Muchandifunga Trust Muchadeyi & Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte & Gian Luca Tanna & Rachel D. Eckford & Yan Feng & Michela Meregaglia & Tessa Peasgood & Stavros Petrou & Jasper Ubels & Michael Schlander, 2024. "Quality Appraisal in Systematic Literature Reviews of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values: Conceptual Considerations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(7), pages 767-782, July.
    20. Lili Wang & Lei Si & Fiona Cocker & Andrew J. Palmer & Kristy Sanderson, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Cost-of-Illness Studies of Multimorbidity," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 15-29, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:p:277-:d:1013705. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.