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

Helter, Timea Mariann; Coast, Joanna; Łaszewska, Agata; Stamm, Tanja; Simon, Judit

doi:10.1007/s11136-019-02393-5

Cited by 51 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 110 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prerequisite for the latter should be the availability of potential instruments for income. On a different note, while there are first applications, more conceptual and theoretical work is needed about whether, when and how capability well-being should be included in health economic evaluations [58]. One open question for example is, whether full capability or a sufficient level of capability, which was established recently, should be considered as the objective of interventions [59].…”

Section: Interpretation and Implications Of The Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the monetary value of health and capability well-being applying the well-being valuation approach

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Quality of life measures going beyond health, like the ICECAP-A, are gaining importance in health technology assessment. The assessment of the monetary value of gains in this broader quality of life is needed to use these measurements in a cost-effectiveness framework. Methods We applied the well-being valuation approach to calculate a first monetary value for capability well-being in comparison to health, derived by ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L, respectively. Data from an online survey administered in February 2018 to a representative sample of UK citizens aged 18–65 was used (N = 1512). To overcome the endogeneity of income, we applied an instrumental variable regression. Several alternative model specifications were calculated to test the robustness of the results. Results The base case empirical estimate for the implied monetary value of a year in full capability well-being was £66,597. The estimate of the monetary value of a QALY, obtained from the same sample and using the same methodology amounted to £30,786, which compares well to previous estimates from the willingness to pay literature. Throughout the conducted robustness checks, the value of capability well-being was found to be between 1.7 and 2.6 times larger than the value of health. Conclusion While the applied approach is not without limitations, the generated insights, especially concerning the relative magnitude of valuations, may be useful for decision-makers having to decide based on economic evaluations using the ICECAP-A measure or, to a lesser extent, other (capability) well-being outcome measures.

show abstract

Section: Interpretation and Implications Of The Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the monetary value of health and capability well-being applying the well-being valuation approach

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

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

“…This approach places emphasis on promoting wellbeing through enabling people to realise their capabilities and engage in behaviours that they value (3). There is increasing interest in the use of the capability approach for the economic evaluation of health-related interventions (4). One reason for this is the wider evaluative space this approach offers in comparison to the commonly used methods of assessment (5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent literature review of capability instruments in economic evaluations of health-related interventions has identi ed 14 instruments, differing in their domains, levels, target populations and interventions (4). Two of these instruments are commonly used and have been validated for the adult population with mental health problems: the Oxford CAPabilities questionnaire-Mental Health (OxCAP-MH) and the ICECAP measure for Adults (ICECAP-A).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

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

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

Cited by 51 publications

References 110 publications

Estimating the monetary value of health and capability well-being applying the well-being valuation approach

Estimating the monetary value of health and capability well-being applying the well-being valuation approach

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About