In frail older people, comprehensive vision and eye assessment, with appropriate treatment, does not reduce, and may even increase, the risk of falls and fractures.

BackgroundEffectiveness and cost-effectiveness are increasingly important considerations in determining which mental health services are funded. Questions have been raised concerning the validity of generic health status instruments used in economic evaluation for assessing mental health problems such as depression; measuring capability wellbeing offers a possible alternative. The aim of this study is to assess the validity of the ICECAP-A capability instrument for individuals with depression.MethodsHypotheses were developed using concept mapping. Validity tests and multivariable regression analysis were applied to data from a cross-sectional dataset to assess the performance of ICECAP-A in individuals who reported having a primary condition of depression. The ICECAP-A was collected alongside instruments used to measure: 1. depression using the depression scale of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-D of DASS-21); 2. mental health using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10); 3. generic health status using a common measure collected for use in economic evaluations, the five level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L).ResultsHypothesised associations between the ICECAP-A (items and index scores) and depression constructs were fully supported in statistical tests. In the multivariable analysis, instruments designed specifically to measure depression and mental health explained a greater proportion of the variation in ICECAP-A than the EQ-5D-5L.ConclusionThe ICECAP-A instrument appears to be suitable for assessing outcome in adults with depression for resource allocation purposes. Further research is required on its responsiveness and use in economic evaluation. Using a capability perspective when assessing cost-effectiveness could potentially re-orientate resource provision across physical and mental health care services.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1211-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PurposeThis paper seeks to argue that boards can be playing a more proactive role in contributing to organizational effectiveness and that their composition requires greater research attention. By integrating the organizational behaviour literature on teams with the governance literature, the paper empirically examines the relationship between key board composition variables and firm performance.Design/methodology/approachAt this stage in the development of the approach, the focus is on a sub‐set of the elements proposed in the group dynamics literature. The population for this study comprises all companies included in the Canadian TSE 300 Composite Index (renamed the S&P/TSX Composite Index). This study uses cross‐sectional regression analyses to examine the nature of the relationships between board composition and firm performance.FindingsThe data analyses revealed that high levels of experience, appropriate team size, moderate levels of variation in age and team tenure were correlated with firm performance.Research limitations/implicationsBoards of directors (BOD) are teams whose effectiveness can be assessed through group dynamic constructs in the organizational behaviour literature. Further research is needed to examine the intricate dynamics that might moderate or mediate the relationship between board characteristics and firm performance.Practical implicationsThe findings provide a much‐needed benchmark to consider whether the composition of boards is optimal, given the functions and mandate. In addition, the study highlights the opportunity costs of boards, restricting their roles to agency issues.Originality/valueThis interdisciplinary paper tests some of the many variables that can be extrapolated from the group dynamics research. The paper calls on boards to examine what BOD functionality really entails, and argues for more proactive behaviours aimed at strategic firm issues.

Direct assessment of capability to function may be useful in healthcare settings, but poses many challenges. This paper reports a first investigation of the feasibility of individuals self-reporting their capabilities and the meaning of the responses. The study was conducted in 2010, using think-aloud interviews with participants in the UK. The findings of the study suggest that the majority of participants were able to comprehend questions about their capabilities, felt able to judge their own capability wellbeing and provided responses in line with this judgement. In a number of cases, for example in relation to ‘autonomy’, participants highlighted that their capability was potentially greater than their functioning. The findings also show varying interpretations of the capability concept, with some participants finding the capability concept unintuitive in relation to specific aspects of life (in particular, ‘attachment’). The findings suggest that guiding individuals in the process of identifying their capabilities may be important in generating consistent responses to capability questions.

Background People with advanced dementia who live and die in nursing homes experience variable quality of life, care and dying. There is a need to identify appropriate, cost-effective interventions that facilitate high-quality end-of-life care provision. Objectives To establish the feasibility and acceptability to staff and family of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial of the Namaste Care intervention for people with advanced dementia in nursing homes. Design The study had three phases: (1) realist review and (2) intervention refinement to inform the design of (3) a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial with a process evaluation and economic analysis. Clusters (nursing homes) were randomised in a 3 : 1 ratio to intervention or control (usual care). The nature of the intervention meant that blinding was not possible. Setting Nursing homes in England providing care for people with dementia. Participants Residents with advanced dementia (assessed as having a Functional Assessment Staging Test score of 6 or 7), their informal carers and nursing home staff. Intervention Namaste Care is a complex group intervention that provides structured personalised care in a dedicated space, focusing on enhancements to the physical environment, comfort management and sensory engagement. Main outcome measures The two contender primary outcome measures were Comfort Assessment in Dying – End of Life Care in Dementia for quality of dying (dementia) and Quality of Life in Late Stage Dementia for quality of life. The secondary outcomes were as follows: person with dementia, sleep/activity (actigraphy), neuropsychiatric symptoms, agitation and pain; informal carers, satisfaction with care at the end of life; staff members, person-centred care assessment, satisfaction with care at the end of life and readiness for change; and other data – health economic outcomes, medication/service use and intervention activity. Results Phase 1 (realist review; 86 papers) identified that a key intervention component was the activities enabling the development of moments of connection. In phase 2, refinement of the intervention enabled the production of a user-friendly 16-page A4 booklet. In phase 3, eight nursing homes were recruited. Two homes withdrew before the intervention commenced; four intervention and two control homes completed the study. Residents with advanced dementia (n = 32) were recruited in intervention (n = 18) and control (n = 14) homes. Informal carers (total, n = 12: intervention, n = 5; control, n = 7) and 97 staff from eight sites (intervention, n = 75; control, n = 22) were recruited over a 6-month period. Recruitment is feasible. Completion rates of the primary outcome questionnaires were high at baseline (100%) and at 4 weeks (96.8%). The Quality of Life in Late Stage Dementia was more responsive to change over 24 weeks. Even where economic data were missing, these could be collected in a full trial. The intervention was acceptable; the dose varied depending on the staffing and physical environment of each care home. Staff and informal carers reported changes for the person with dementia in two ways: increased social engagement and greater calm. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. Conclusions A subsequent definitive trial is feasible if there are amendments to the recruitment process, outcome measure choice and intervention specification. Future work In a full trial, consideration is needed of the appropriate outcome measure that is sensitive to different participant responses, and of clear implementation principles for this person-centred intervention in a nursing home context. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14948133. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Recent years have seen increased engagement amongst health economists with the capability approach developed by Amartya Sen and others. This paper focuses on the capability approach in relation to the evaluative space used for analysis within health economics. It considers the opportunities that the capability approach offers in extending this space, but also the methodological challenges associated with moving from the theoretical concepts to practical empirical applications. The paper then examines three 'families' of measures, Oxford Capability instruments (OxCap), Adult Social Care Outcome Toolkit (ASCOT) and ICEpop CAPability (ICECAP), in terms of the methodological choices made in each case. The paper concludes by discussing some of the broader issues involved in making use of the capability approach in health economics. It also suggests that continued exploration of the impact of different methodological choices will be important in moving forward.

Amartya Sen's capability approach has been discussed widely in the health economics discipline. Although measures have been developed to assess capability in economic evaluation, there has been much less attention paid to the decision rules that might be applied alongside. Here, new methods, drawing on the multidimensional poverty and health economics literature, are developed for conducting economic evaluation within the capability approach and focusing on an objective of achieving "sufficient capability". This objective more closely reflects the concern with equity that pervades the capability approach and the method has the advantage of retaining the longitudinal aspect of estimating outcome that is associated with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), whilst also drawing on notions of shortfall associated with assessments of poverty. Economic evaluation from this perspective is illustrated in an osteoarthritis patient group undergoing joint replacement, with capability wellbeing assessed using ICECAP-O. Recommendations for taking the sufficient capability approach forward are provided.

BackgroundEvaluations of the impact of interventions for resource allocation purposes commonly focus on health status. There is, however, also concern about broader impacts on wellbeing and, increasingly, on a person's capability. This study aims to compare the impact on health status and capability of seven major health conditions, and highlight differences in treatment priorities when outcomes are measured by capability as opposed to health status.MethodsThe study was a cross-sectional four country survey (n = 6650) of eight population groups: seven disease groups with: arthritis, asthma, cancer, depression, diabetes, hearing loss, and heart disease and one health population ‘comparator’ group. Two simple self-complete questionnaires were used to measure health status (EQ-5D-5L) and capability (ICECAP-A). Individuals were classified by illness severity using condition-specific questionnaires. Effect sizes were used to estimate: (i) the difference in health status and capability for those with conditions, relative to a healthy population; and (ii) the impact of the severity of the condition on health status and capability within each disease group.Findings5248 individuals were included in the analysis. Individuals with depression have the greatest mean reduction in both health (effect size, 1.26) and capability (1.22) compared to the healthy population. The effect sizes for capability for depression are much greater than for all other conditions, which is not the case for health. For example, the arthritis group effect size for health (1.24) is also high and similar to that of depression, whereas for the same arthritis group, the effect size for capability is much lower than that for depression (0.55). In terms of severity within disease groups, individuals categorised as 'mild' have similar capability levels to the healthy population (effect sizes <0.2, excluding depression) but lower health status than the healthy population (≥0.4).ConclusionSignificant differences exist in the relative effect sizes across diseases when measured by health status and capability. In terms of treating morbidity, a shift in focus from health gain to capability gain would increase funding priorities for patients with depression specifically and severe illnesses more generally.