Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Empirical Comparison Between Capability and Two Health-Related Quality of Life Measures

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Investigating Choice Experiments Capability Measure (ICECAP) is a new preference-based measure of the extent to which a person is able to achieve attributes or capabilities related to the quality of life. Conceptually, it differs from health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as the focus is upon the ability or capacity to achieve as distinct from the current experience of the attributes. The objective of this study was to explore the empirical relationships between capability as assessed by the ICECAP for Adults (ICECAP-A) and HRQoL as assessed by the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D and the five-level EuroQol Five Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D). To compare these measures, the study employed self-reported survey data from the healthy public and from seven disease areas in five countries. Results indicate that, despite their conceptual origins, the ICECAP-A is strongly associated with the AQoL-8D and that the clear distinction between capabilities and HRQoL found in other studies is attributable to the use of the EQ-5D in the comparison and the weaker association between the EQ-5D and ICECAP-A. The suggestion that ICECAP-A should be included in evaluation studies along with a HRQoL instrument is more persuasive when the instrument is the EQ-5D. The case for its inclusion with other HRQoL instruments requires further research and evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T., & Coast, J. (2012). Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Quality of Life Research, 21(1), 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Janabi, H., Peters, T. J., Brazier, J., Bryan, S., Flynn, T. N., Clemens, S., et al. (2013). An investigation of the construct validity of the ICECAP-A capability measure. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1831–1840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brazier, J. E., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2016). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coast, J., Kinghorn, P., & Mitchell, P. (2015). The development of capability measures in health economics: Opportunities, challenges and progress. The Patient, 8(2), 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coast, J., Smith, R. D., & Lorgelly, P. (2008a). Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: The spread of ideas in health economics. Social Science and Medicine, 67(7), 1190–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coast, J., Smith, R., & Lorgelly, P. (2008b). Should the capability approach be applied in health economics? Editorial. Health Economics, 17, 667–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couzner, L., Ratcliffe, J., & Crotty, M. (2012). The relationship between quality of life, health and care transition: An empirical comparison in an older post-acute population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10(1), 69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. C., Liu-Ambrose, T., Richardson, C. G., & Bryan, S. (2013). A comparison of the ICECAP-O with EQ-5D in a falls prevention clinical setting: Are they complements or substitutes? Quality of Life Research, 22(5), 969–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devlin, N., Shah, K. K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2017). Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss, J., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 3, 613–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, T. N., Huynh, E., Peters, T. J., Al-Janabi, H., Clemens, S., Moody, A., et al. (2015). Scoring the ICECAP-A capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Economics, 24(3), 258–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, G., Lorgelly, P., & Yamabhai, I. (2016). Outcomes in economic evaluations of public health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: Health, capabilities and subjective wellbeing. Health Economics, 25(S1), 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, T., Al-Janabi, H., Lorgelly, P., & Coast, J. (2013). A qualitative assessment of the content validity of the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L and their appropriateness for use in health research. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e85287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, T., Coast, J., Nicholls, E., Foster, N. E., Jowett, S., & Al-Janabi, H. (2016). An analysis of the complementarity of ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3L in an adult population of patients with knee pain. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14, 36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorgelly, P. K., Lawson, K. D., Fenwick, E. A., & Briggs, A. H. (2010). Outcome measurement in economic evaluations of public health interventions: a role for the capability approach? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(5), 2274–2289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, N., Bradley, S., Ratcliffe, J., & Currow, D. C. (2016). What aspects of quality of life are important from palliative care patients’ perspectives? A systematic review of qualitative research. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 52(2), 318–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, P. M., Al-Janabi, H., Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Coast, J. (2015). The relative impacts of disease on health status and capability wellbeing: A multi-country study. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0143590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, P. M., Roberts, T. E., Barton, P. M., & Coast, J. (2016). Applications of the capability approach in the health field: A literature review. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1356-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, R., Oemar, M., Oppe, M., Janssen, B., & Herdman, M. (2011). EQ-5D-5L User Guide: Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. EuroQoL Group. http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/publications/user-guide.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2016.

  • Richardson, J., Elsworth, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M.A., Mihalopoulos, C., Schweitzer, I., et al. (2011). Increasing the sensitivity of the AQoL inventory for the evaluation of interventions affecting mental health. Research Paper 2011 (61). Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

  • Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2015a). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research, 24(8), 2045–2053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M.A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments: MIC Paper 1: Background, questions, instruments. Research Paper 2012 (76). Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

  • Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., Chen, G., & Maxwell, A. (2016). Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of 6 utility instruments in 7 disease areas. Medical Decision Making, 36(2), 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015b). Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 276–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J., McKie, J., & Bariola, E. (2014a). Multi attribute utility instruments and their use. In A. J. Culyer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Health Economics (Vol. 2, pp. 341–357). San Diego: Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. (2014b). Modelling utility weights for the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-8D. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2395–2404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, K. M., Bosmans, J. E., Jansen, A. P. D., Hoogendijk, E. O., van Tulder, M. W., van der Horst, H. E., et al. (2015a). Comparing measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O, and ASCOT in frail older adults. Value in Health, 18(1), 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, K. M., Jansen, A. P. D., Muntinga, M. E., Bosmans, J. E., Westerman, M. J., van Tulder, M. W., et al. (2015b). Exploration of the content validity and feasibility of the EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O and ASCOT in older adults. BMC Health Services Research, 15, 201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (1997). WHOQOL measuring quality of life. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/68.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2014.

  • Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Factors influencing five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletion, 99(3), 432–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial support from an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant 1006334 titled “A Cross National Comparison of Eight Generic Quality of Life Instruments” is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, 15 Innovation Way, Clayton Campus, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Gang Chen & Jeff Richardson

  2. Institute for Choice, University of South Australia Business School, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia

    Julie Ratcliffe

  3. Health Economics Unit, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5041, Australia

    Billingsley Kaambwa & Nikki McCaffrey

  4. Deakin Health Economics, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia

    Nikki McCaffrey

Authors
  1. Gang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie Ratcliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Billingsley Kaambwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nikki McCaffrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeff Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gang Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

JR developed the AQoL-8D instrument. Other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, G., Ratcliffe, J., Kaambwa, B. et al. Empirical Comparison Between Capability and Two Health-Related Quality of Life Measures. Soc Indic Res 140, 175–190 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1788-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1788-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation