Assessing the validity of the ICECAP-A capability measure for adults with depression

Mitchell, P. M.; Al‐Janabi, Hareth; Byford, Sarah; Kuyken, Willem; Richardson, Jeffrey Ralph James; Iezzi, Angelo; Coast, Joanna

doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1211-8

Cited by 42 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall ndings are consistent with previous studies that found the ICECAP-A to be promising in terms of validity [16,17,27] and responsiveness [16,28] in different populations and health conditions. The most comparable is the study by Al-Janabi et al [17], where the ICECAP-A was found to be associated with various socioeconomic variables, the EQ-5D, and questions concerning freedom and opportunities.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…ICECAP-A is still a relatively new questionnaire, and so developing a better understanding of the tool's validity and responsiveness across populations is essential for its further use in health economic evaluations. Previous studies have demonstrated construct validity in different populations, including the general British population [17], women with irritable lower urinary tract symptoms [16] and a population with depression [27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A smaller change in capability scores would, therefore, be expected in response to changes in health, and could have been useful to investigate with more anchors than general health. A previous study used EQ-5D as an anchor, in a population with depression, resulting in a correlation between all attributes of the ICECAP-A [27]. This study had a large proportion of missing data in term of patients not having both a baseline and follow-up measures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Holst-Kristensen

Mitchell

Linton

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Holst-Kristensen

Mitchell

Linton

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The slightly different results of the current study con rm previously identi ed weaknesses of the EQ-5D-5L instrument to measure HRQoL in severely ill mental health patients (52). Our results also con rm the ndings of a study comparing ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L instruments in the area of depression, which concluded that instruments designed speci cally to measure depression and mental health explained a greater proportion of the variation in ICECAP-A than the EQ-5D-5L (53).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

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

Self Cite

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

“…Davis et al [35] and Couzner et al [36] reported that the difference in values between the patient and general population groups was found to be far more pronounced for the EQ-5D-3L than for the ICECAP-O. There is a consensus in the literature that changes related to the broader meaning of health are better captured by the capability instruments than by EQ-5D [37][38][39]. Coast et al [40] found strong evidence of association of general health with all capability attributes except for the attachment domain of ICECAP-A.…”

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

Self Cite

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

Assessing the validity of the ICECAP-A capability measure for adults with depression

Cited by 42 publications

References 61 publications

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

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

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About