An analysis of the complementarity of ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3 L in an adult population of patients with knee pain

Keeley, Thomas; Coast, Joanna; Foster, Nadine E; Jowett, Sue; Al‐Janabi, Hareth

doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0430-x

Cited by 41 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Firstly, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression methods were used to test whether type of health condition (reporting the presence of one of seven primary health conditions compared to being healthy) had a significant association with capability scores, controlling for age, gender and educational level. Although previous research has employed exploratory factor analysis to validate ICECAP measures compared to other health measures (Davis et al 2013;Keeley et al 2016;Engel et al 2017), our research question required a method to compare the performance of two versions of ICECAP simultaneously. Previous research has demonstrated that OLS models perform well in health-related quality of life outcome studies (Al-Janabi et al 2017), and studies with capability wellbeing measures (Mitchell et al 2013;Mitchell et al 2017b;Franklin et al 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the German Translation of the ICECAP-A Capability Wellbeing Measure to the Original English Version: Psychometric Properties across Healthy Samples and Seven Health Condition Groups

Linton

Mitchell

Al‐Janabi

et al. 2018

Applied Research Quality Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the cross-cultural use of outcome measures grows, it is important to determine whether these instruments are: appropriate for use in other settings, translated accurately, and perform in a similar manner to their original tools. This research aimed to compare the validity of the German translation of the ICECAP-A to the original English version of the instrument, across healthy adults and seven health condition groups (arthritis, asthma, cancer, depression, diabetes, hearing loss and heart disease). Data were analysed from a cross-cultural study, which recruited participants through online panels in 2012. Data were analysed on capability wellbeing (ICECAP-A), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D), satisfaction with life (SWLS), and a series of other condition-specific outcome measures. The ICECAP-A was assessed for internal consistency, convergent validity and construct validity. 2501 individuals were included in the analysis. The ICECAP-A demonstrated good internal consistency within Germany and the UK population, and across all seven health condition subgroups (α = .74-.86). In both countries, ICECAP-A scores were significantly correlated with SWLS, SF-6D and EQ-5D-5L scores for healthy participants and health condition groups (r = .35-.77). Finally, experiencing one of the seven health conditions (compared to being healthy) was significantly associated with lower levels of capability wellbeing in the German and UK samples (construct validity). The German translation of the ICECAP-A yielded valid and reliable data, in both healthy respondents and the seven health condition groups. Further work could be undertaken to develop a German specific value-set for the ICECAP-A.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the German Translation of the ICECAP-A Capability Wellbeing Measure to the Original English Version: Psychometric Properties across Healthy Samples and Seven Health Condition Groups

Linton

Mitchell

Al‐Janabi

et al. 2018

Applied Research Quality Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, capability instruments could also be perceived as enhanced rather than complementary to the narrow interpretation of well-being/quality of life when focusing only on HRQoL. Most studies [25][26][27] found that the ICECAP and EQ-5D instruments provide complementary information, and a mapping is not recommended between them. Engel et al [24] found that the ICECAP-A provides evidence above that gathered from most commonly used preference-based HRQoL instruments.…”

Section: Validation Of Capability Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capability instruments in economic evaluations of health-related interventions: a comparative review of the literature

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Given increasing interest in using the capability approach for health economic evaluations and a growing literature, this paper aims to synthesise current information about the characteristics of capability instruments and their application in health economic evaluations. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted to assess studies that contained information on the development, psychometric properties and valuation of capability instruments, or their application in economic evaluations. Results The review identified 98 studies and 14 instruments for inclusion. There is some evidence on the psychometric properties of most instruments. Most papers found moderate-to-high correlation between health and capability measures, ranging between 0.41 and 0.64. ASCOT, ICECAP-A,-O and-SCM instruments have published valuation sets, most frequently developed using best-worst scaling. Thirteen instruments were originally developed in English and one in Portuguese; however, some translations to other languages are available. Ten economic evaluations using capability instruments were identified. The presentation of results show a lack of consensus regarding the most appropriate way to use capability instruments in economic evaluations with discussion about capability-adjusted life years (CALYs), years of capability equivalence and the trade-off between maximisation of capability versus sufficient capability. Conclusion There has been increasing interest in applying the capability-based approach in health economic evaluations, but methodological and conceptual issues remain. There is still a need for direct comparison of the different capability instruments and for clear guidance on when and how they should be used in economic evaluations.

show abstract

“…Perhaps this should not be surprising as the ICECAP measures potentially offer a broader assessment of QoL and well-being than measures routinely used in economic evaluation such as the EQ-5D-3L. 108 This broader assessment may allow measurement of the full effects of an intervention or treatment. Previous research has indicated that the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-3L measures provide complementary information and are not substitutes for each other.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visually Impaired OLder people’s Exercise programme for falls prevenTion (VIOLET): a feasibility study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The visually impaired have a higher risk of falling and are likely to avoid activity. Objectives To adapt the existing Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme, which is delivered in the community, for visually impaired older people (VIOP) and to investigate the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial of this adapted intervention. Design Phase I – consultation with stakeholders to adapt the existing programme. Two focus groups were conducted, each with 10 VIOP across the study sites. Phase II – two-centre randomised pilot trial and economic evaluation of the adapted programme for VIOP versus usual care. Phases III and IV – qualitative interviews with VIOP and Postural Stability Instructors regarding their views and experiences of the research process, undertaking the intervention and its acceptability. Intervention This was adapted from the group-based FaME programme. A 1-hour exercise programme ran weekly over 12 weeks at the study sites (Newcastle upon Tyne and Glasgow) and was delivered by third-sector organisations. Participants were advised to also exercise at home for 2 hours per week. Those randomised to the usual activities group received no intervention. Outcome measures These were completed at baseline, week 12 and week 24. The primary potential outcome measure used was the Short Form Falls Efficacy Scale – International. Secondary outcome assessment measures were activity avoidance, current activity, balance/falls risk, physical activity, loneliness, anxiety and depression, work and social adjustment, quality of life and economic costs. Participants’ compliance was assessed by reviewing attendance records and self-reported compliance with the home exercises. Instructors’ compliance with the course content (fidelity) was assessed by a researcher attending a sample of exercise sessions. Adverse events were collected in a weekly telephone call for all participants in both the intervention and control arm. Findings An adapted exercise programme was devised with stakeholders. In the pilot trial, 82 participants drawn from community-living VIOP were screened, 68 met the inclusion criteria and 64 were randomised, with 33 allocated to the intervention and 31 to the usual activities arm. A total of 94% of participants provided data at week 12 and 92% at week 24. Adherence to the study was high. The intervention was found to be both safe and acceptable to participants, with 76% attending nine or more classes. Median time for home exercise was 50 minutes per week. There was little or no evidence that fear of falling, exercise, attitudinal or quality-of-life outcomes differed between trial arms at follow-up. Thematic analysis of the interviews with VIOP participants identified facilitators of and barriers to exercise, including perceived relevance to health, well-being and lifestyle, social interaction, self-perception and practical assistance. Instructors identified issues regarding level of challenge and assistance from a second person. Limitations The small sample size and low falls risk of the study sample are study limitations. Conclusion Although adaptation, recruitment and delivery were successful, the findings (particularly from qualitative research with instructors and participants) indicated that VIOP with low to moderate falls risk could be integrated into mainstream programmes with some adaptations. A future definitive trial should consider graduated exercises appropriate to ability and falls risk within mainstream provision. Other outcome measures may additionally be considered. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16949845. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

An analysis of the complementarity of ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3 L in an adult population of patients with knee pain

Cited by 41 publications

References 25 publications

Comparing the German Translation of the ICECAP-A Capability Wellbeing Measure to the Original English Version: Psychometric Properties across Healthy Samples and Seven Health Condition Groups

Comparing the German Translation of the ICECAP-A Capability Wellbeing Measure to the Original English Version: Psychometric Properties across Healthy Samples and Seven Health Condition Groups

Capability instruments in economic evaluations of health-related interventions: a comparative review of the literature

Visually Impaired OLder people’s Exercise programme for falls prevenTion (VIOLET): a feasibility study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About