User talk:Nkim69/sandbox
Nam, Looks like your article is coming together. I like that you cover the different components of the instrument. A couple of notes. 1. Check the phrasing of the last sentence of your lead in paragraph and the first sentence of the reliability section. These sentences aren't quite neutral in tone. Eva.dugoff (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nam,
I really like your outline. Just few things. I think it will be good to provide the full name of EQ-5D (EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire). Also, in the development section, it would be better if you could write more about the development of EQ-5D. It seems good that you wrote about the development of the EuroQol group which is important for the development of EQ-5D, but the only information which I can get from the development section of EQ-5D is that is was introduce in 1990, translated into more than 170 languages, and a little about EQ-5D-3L. I think it will be more helpful for readers if you are possible to provide more information about what is EQ-5D-3L, what was different with EQ-5D, why or how they developed (changed) it, or any other version.
Daniel Dhjung87 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nam, I checked in on your sandbox today. I'll check back in on Monday. Eva.dugoff (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Eva
Outline Review
[edit]Great work, Nkim69. The outline looks to be in excellent shape. Given the diversity of EQ-5D instruments it makes sense that a big chunk of your article will document the different scoring options. I think it would also be interesting to include some discussion of the number of countries where the EQ-5D has been used - if that information is available. Under applications, you might want to briefly discuss uses of the EQ-5D in cost-benefit analysis and defining quality adjusted life years.
I think your citations are a good mix of peer-review and non-peer-reviewed documents. Given the nature of the topic, its hard to avoid primary source material. But if you can, try to limit the number of primary sources because they are probably not readily accessible/understandable to a general audience. There are several systematic reviews available that might be a good source for citing the EQ-5D's reliability, validity, and responsiveness to changes in health (e.g., see here).
Fyi, a wiki user who is interested in the EQ-5D page may have some other ideas if you are interested in engaging. On the EQ-5D talk page he wrote:
- That's great news! I'd be interested to know if your students will be editing other health economics articles. If so, I'll be happy to support the work in some way. Drop me a note on my talk page if you'd like to discuss it further. I'm keen to see health economics articles on Wikipedia improved - I've written about it before (see here). If your students are on Twitter, they may be able to engage other health economists by using the hashtag #HealthEconWiki.