Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life

Huynh, Elisabeth; Coast, Joanna; Rose, John M.; Kinghorn, Philip; Flynn, Terry N.

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.07.012

Cited by 49 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, it is questionable which capabilities are able to explain differences in well-being and are sensitive to public policies in high-income countries. Second, questions of the relevant instruments should capture voluntary General public 6020 [101,110] and involuntary positions because an applied conceptualization of the capability approach includes opportunity as well as achievement. Third, methods for weighting capability and threshold values should be established, similar to QALYs.…”

Section: Applied Economic Evaluations and Potential Methods To Incorpmentioning

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

Section: Applied Economic Evaluations and Potential Methods To Incorpmentioning

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

show abstract

“…Initially two separate ordered logits were estimated for summer and winter scenarios. In order to determine whether the preferences stated in both methods were proportionally similar, the coefficients derived from the two models were plotted (D. Hensher, Louviere, & Swait, 1998;Huynh, Coast, Rose, Kinghorn, & Flynn, 2017;Swait & Bernardino, 2000). This offers a preliminary suggestion as to whether the data is likely to be possible to be pooled together.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonality effects on consumers' preferences over quality attributes of different beef products

Ardeshiri

Sampson²,

Swait́

2019

Meat Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using discrete choice modelling, the study investigates 946 American consumers' willingnessto-pay and preferences for diverse beef products. A novel experiment was used to elicit the number of beef products that each consumer would purchase. The range of products explored in this study included ground, diced, roast, and six cuts of steaks (sirloin, tenderloin, flank, flap, New York and cowboy/rib-eye).The outcome of the study suggests that US consumers vary in their preferences for beef products by season. The presence of a USDA certification logo is by far the most important factor affecting consumer's willingness to pay for all beef cuts, which is also heavily dependent on season. In relation to packaging, US consumers have mixed preference for different beef products by season. The results from a scaled adjusted ordered logit model showed that after price, safety-related attributes such as certification logos, types of packaging, and antibiotic free and organic products are a stronger influence on American consumers' choice. | P a g eFurthermore, US consumers on average purchase diced and roast products more often in winter "slow cooking season", than in summer; whereas New York strip and flank steak are more popular in the summer "grilling season".This study provides valuable insights for businesses as well as policymakers to make inform decisions while considering how consumers relatively value among different labelling and product attributes by season and better address any ethical, safety and aesthetic concerns that consumers might have.

show abstract

“…The 3L version has also been found wanting in populations, including for many mental health conditions [14,15], for children [16], and for people at the end of life [17]. In response, alternative tools such as the Recovering Quality of Life instrument [18], CHU-9D [19] and the ICECAP-SCM [20] have been developed for use in these populations. If the EQ-5D-3L was considered not valid in these groups, what can we say about the EQ-5D-5L?…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L

Round

2018

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EQ-5D-3L version has long been the preferred measure of health-related utility estimates for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Over time, concerns about the EQ-5D-3L have been raised, focusing on its sensitivity to changes in health state, ceiling effects, and the uneven distribution of values across the states. In response, the EuroQol group developed an alternative five-level version, the EQ-5D-5L, and in 2013 NICE recommended the 5L version for use in reference case analyses. Subsequently, the new version of the instrument has been widely adopted in clinical research and for economic evaluation, typically at the expense of the EQ-5D-3L version. Yet this begs the question and assumes the 5L version is simply a minor change to the 3L version that can be adopted without consideration of its own merits. It is right to ask, however, whether it is more than just a minor variant of the 3L. The 3L version has been tested and validated in a wide range of patient groups-the same cannot yet be said for the 5L version. Additionally, the 3L version was adopted at a time when reliable alternative measures of outcome were scarce-the same cannot be said now. Here I argue that analysts and reimbursement authorities such as NICE should exercise caution and consider the whole range of alternative tools before adopting the 5L version as the reference case.

show abstract

Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life

Cited by 49 publications

References 47 publications

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

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

Seasonality effects on consumers' preferences over quality attributes of different beef products

Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About