A Systematic Review of the Feasibility and Psychometric Properties of the ICEpop CAPability Measure for Adults and Its Use So Far in Economic Evaluation

Afentou, Nafsika; Kinghorn, Philip

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.12.010

Cited by 28 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beside the original English language version, it is also available in German (32), Chinese (36), Welsh, Dutch, Danish, Persian and Italian languages (37). The ICECAP-A has a preference-based value set derived from the UK general population (30) and it is increasingly used in economic evaluations (38).…”

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do alternative capability instruments capture differing aspects of mental health and quality of life in comparison to the EQ-5D for schizophrenic patients with depression?

Helter

Coast

Łaszewska

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is increasing evidence that assessing outcomes in terms of capability wellbeing provides information beyond that of health-related quality of life measures for evaluation in mental health research. This paper aimed to contribute to the utilisation of capability-based measures relative to health status measures in mental health research, by exploring the empirical relationship between the OxCAP-MH, the ICECAP-A, and the EQ-5D instruments against condition-specific measures and each other for schizophrenic patients with depression. Methods: Using trial data for 100 patients from the UK, the properties of the instruments were compared in terms of convergent validity, including correlations between the OxCAP-MH, the ICECAP-A, the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system and the EQ-5D VAS scores; and a line of central tendency between two variables was plotted on locally weighted smoothing curves. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) investigated the extent to which the instruments measured complementary or overlapping constructs. Responsiveness was assessed in terms of standardised response mean and correlation between change scores (baseline to endpoint) of the instruments. Results: Correlation between the OxCAP-MH and ICECAP-A baseline scores was strong (0.682) and between change scores was moderate (0.401). The baseline scores of both capability instruments correlated more with condition-specific (0.481-0.718) than with generic (0.344-0.425) instruments. Their change scores weakly correlated with change scores of the generic health-related scales (0.183-0.247), but moderately with those of condition-specific instruments (0.339-0.557). The EFA found that while the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system loaded onto one factor, the items of the ICECAP-A loaded onto two additional factors and the items of the OxCAP-MH loaded onto three additional factors. Conclusions: The capability instruments had stronger convergent validity with each other than with any of the other instruments. Assessing outcomes in terms of capabilities for schizophrenic patients with depression proved to capture broader relevant information than the EQ-5D-5L both by the OxCAP-MH and the ICECAP-A, albeit to different extent. When comparing the two capability instruments, the OxCAP-MH tended to have stronger correlations with condition-specific instruments most likely due to its origin from mental health outcome measurement, while the ICECAP-A had slightly stronger correlation with the EQ-5D VAS.

show abstract

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do alternative capability instruments capture differing aspects of mental health and quality of life in comparison to the EQ-5D for schizophrenic patients with depression?

Helter

Coast

Łaszewska

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous factor analysis comparing the ICECAP-A with the items of EQ-5D-5L (31) and EQ-5D-3L (13,15) found that these instruments measure two different constructs and therefore provide potentially different information. A recent systematic literature review found inconsistencies between the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D instruments, suggesting that the ICECAP-A is most appropriately regarded as a complement for and not a substitute to the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in particular (32). The ICECAP-A has a preference-based value set derived from the UK general population (24) and it is increasingly used in economic evaluations (32).…”

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent systematic literature review found inconsistencies between the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D instruments, suggesting that the ICECAP-A is most appropriately regarded as a complement for and not a substitute to the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in particular (32). The ICECAP-A has a preference-based value set derived from the UK general population (24) and it is increasingly used in economic evaluations (32). The simple addition of ICECAP-A level sum scores ranges from 5 to 20, with higher scores representing better capabilities.…”

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Assessing Outcomes in Terms of Capability for Schizophrenic Patients with Depression Provide more Information Than use of the NICE Recommended QALY? - An Empirical Comparison of the OxCAP-MH, ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L Instruments

Helter

Łaszewska

Stamm

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that assessing outcomes in terms of capability wellbeing provides information beyond that of health-related quality of life measures for evaluation in mental health research. This paper aims to comprehensively compare the properties of the Oxford CAPabilities questionnaire-Mental Health (OxCAP-MH), the ICECAP-A the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system and EQ-5D VAS in schizophrenic patients with depression.Methods Using trial data for 100 patients from the UK, the properties of the instruments were compared in terms of construct validity, including correlations between the OxCAP-MH, the ICECAP-A, the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system and the EQ-5D VAS scores; and comparative assessment of their sensitivity to change based on external anchors. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) investigated the extent to which the instruments measure complementary or overlapping constructs. The pattern and extent of agreement between all instruments was plotted on Bland-Altman diagrams. ResultsDifferent aspects of the analysis confirmed that the capability instruments had stronger convergent validity with each other than with health-related instruments. The EFA found that while the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system loads onto one factor, the items of the ICECAP-A load onto three factors and the items of the OxCAP-MH spread across four factors. Correlation between the OxCAP-MH and ICECAP-A change scores was moderate (0.389). The ICECAP-A change scores also moderately correlated with change scores of generic health-related scales (0.307-0.357) and disease-specific instruments (0.295-0.468). The OxCAP-MH change scores had low correlation to generic (0.153-0.202) and moderate to high correlation with disease-specific instruments (0.441-0.527). The Bland Altman plots showed small average discrepancy between the four scales. However, the limits of agreement were wider and therefore more ambiguous in the comparison between the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system score and the capabilities instruments than in the direct comparison of OxCAP-MH and ICECAP-A.ConclusionsAssessing outcomes in terms of capability for schizophrenic patients with depression provide more information than use of the NICE recommended QALY. OxCAP-MH and ICECAP-A show similar construct validity in severely ill mental health patients within the capability framework. Future research should extend the comparison of the properties of these instruments to other areas of mental health.

show abstract

“…For all indices, a value of < 0.2 was considered small, 0.2-0.5 moderate and > 0.5 large responsiveness [23]. The range of the un-weighted score was 16 (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20), and for the tariff score was 1 (0-1) with higher scores on both representing higher capability. Age differences in responsiveness were investigated by subgroup analysis using a group < 65 years of age and a group ≥ 65 years of age.…”

Section: Responsivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A systematic review by Afentou and Kinghorn [9] and a comparative review by Helter et al [10] found evidence available on reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-A measure in various populations, but so far, most evidence relates to the original UK version [9,10]. In the Danish context, only one reliability study of the ICECAP-A in the general population exists [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of Construct Validity and Responsiveness of the Danish ICECAP-A

Holst-Kristensen

Mitchell

Linton

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study aimed to provide the first assessment of construct validity of ICECAP-A in patients with cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes, and to assess the responsiveness of the measure in this group. MethodData were provided from patients attending rehabilitation in the municipality of Aalborg, Denmark, from March 2018 to March 2019. Patients answered a questionnaire from the healthcare centre and the ICECAP-A at baseline and 12 weeks follow-up. To assess construct validity, a priori hypotheses were developed. Based on these hypotheses, associations between sociodemographic characteristics, ‘general health’, a freedom dimension, and ICECAP-A were analysed through chi-squared tests and Spearman rank correlations for categorical and ordinal variables, respectively. To investigate responsiveness, the anchor-based method was used. Patients were divided into improved, worsened or no change, based on changes between baseline and follow-up on the anchor measures (‘general health’ and ‘freedom’). To quantify responsiveness, both the weighted and un-weighted ICECAP-A scores’ effect sizes, standardised response means and t-tests were used. Findings were explored across different age groups.ResultOf all the hypothesised associations, 16 of 26 (62%) were in the expected direction. The expected relationships were found between ICECAP-A scores and general health and freedom to do things. ICECAP-A was responsive in terms of capturing the effects on general health and the freedom to do things. Differences were found across age groups, with greater responsiveness to change in those aged under 65 years. The item-by-item analysis showed that capability was mainly driven by stability and autonomy.ConclusionThis study has shown that the Danish ICECAP-A is a valid and responsive measure of the effects of an exercise and education-based rehabilitation programme.

show abstract

A Systematic Review of the Feasibility and Psychometric Properties of the ICEpop CAPability Measure for Adults and Its Use So Far in Economic Evaluation

Cited by 28 publications

References 37 publications

Do alternative capability instruments capture differing aspects of mental health and quality of life in comparison to the EQ-5D for schizophrenic patients with depression?

Do alternative capability instruments capture differing aspects of mental health and quality of life in comparison to the EQ-5D for schizophrenic patients with depression?

Does Assessing Outcomes in Terms of Capability for Schizophrenic Patients with Depression Provide more Information Than use of the NICE Recommended QALY? - An Empirical Comparison of the OxCAP-MH, ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L Instruments

An Investigation of Construct Validity and Responsiveness of the Danish ICECAP-A

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About