CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 294Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Population norms and meaningful differences for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) measure

Open access
Hawthorne, Graeme, Osborne, Richard·2005·Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2005.tb00063.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument is widely used in Australian health research. To assist researchers interpret and report their work, this paper reports population and health status norms, general minimal important differences (MIDs) and effect sizes.Method Data from the 1998 South Australian Health Omnibus Survey (n=3,010 population-based respondents) were analysed by gender, age group and health status. Data from four other longitudinal studies were analysed to obtain estimated MIDs.Results The mean (SD) AQoL utility score was 0.83 (0.20). Gender and age subgroup differences were apparent; the mean scores for women were consistent until their 50s, when scores declined. Greater variability was observed for males whose scores declined more slowly but consistently between 40-80 years. For both genders, those aged 80+ years had the lowest scores. When assessed by health status, those reporting excellent health obtained the highest utility scores; progressive declines were observed with decreasing health status. Effect sizes of 0.13 or greater may reflect important differences between groups. A difference in AQoL scores of 0.06 utility points over time suggests a general MID.Conclusions AQoL population norms, MIDs and effect sizes can be used as reference points for the interpretation of AQoL data. These findings add to the growing evidence that the AQoL is a robust and sensitive measure that has wide applicability.Implications The availability of population norms will assist researchers using the AQoL to more easily interpret and report their work.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2005.tb00063.x

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Wilson, 1992, The South Australian Health Omnibus Survey, Health Promot J Aust, 2, 47
  2. Wyrwich, 2002, The reliability of retrospective change assessments, Qual Life Res, 11, 636

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 294

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hawthorne, G., & Osborne, R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Hawthorne, Graeme
ORCID
Osborne, Richard
Venue
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-04
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
136-142
ISSN
1326-0200 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-842x.2005.tb00063.x
OpenAlex
W2092659488
Cited by
294
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 18
FWCI
23.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
AQoL, population norms, minimal important difference, effect size, health status, utility scores, gender differences, age differences, health-related quality of life, reference values
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, South Australia, Age Distribution, Sex Distribution, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review