Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 6/2019

Open Access 01-06-2019

ICECAP-O, the current state of play: a systematic review of studies reporting the psychometric properties and use of the instrument over the decade since its publication

Authors: Louise Proud, Carol McLoughlin, Philip Kinghorn

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 6/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

A paper reporting the development of the ICECAP-O was published in 2006. Since then, there has been increasing interest in the use of capability-based measures within health economics and the ICECAP-O has been suggested for use in economic evaluation by decision-making bodies in the Netherlands and UK.

Methods

A systematic review of studies published between January 2006 and October 2018 which have assessed the psychometric properties of ICECAP-O or utilised the measure within economic evaluation.

Results

Twenty-four studies explored the psychometric properties of ICECAP-O and 21 have utilised the measure within economic evaluation; one study reported psychometric properties as well as utilising the measure within economic evaluation. The ICECAP-O has good construct validity and responsiveness, but there is evidence of some issues relating to content validity. In the context of economic evaluation, the ICECAP-O has, to date, mainly been included as a secondary economic measure and the reporting of results is brief with minimal detail and often no discussion. Five of the economic evaluation studies combined scores from ICECAP-O with time, but each used different terminology to describe this result.

Conclusion

Focus, in terms of publications, appears to have shifted now from assessment of psychometric properties to the utilisation of the ICECAP-O within economic evaluation. Further research is needed with respect to a decision-rule for the ICECAP measures. This additional research should also guide users in terms of appropriate analysis, terminology and presentation of results, which are in-keeping with the conceptual framework underpinning the ICECAP-O.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Those intending to use the ICECAP-O are requested to submit a User Agreement Form and information from that form is stored on a database.
 
Literature
1.
Coast, J., Kinghorn, P., & Mitchell, P. (2015). The development of capability measures in health economics: Opportunities, challenges and progress. The Patient: Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, 8, 119–126.CrossRef
2.
Grewal, I., et al. (2006). Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities? Social Science & Medicine, 62, 1891–1901.CrossRef
3.
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.CrossRef
4.
Sutton, E., & Coast, J. (2014). Development of a supportive care measure for economic evaluations of end-of-life care using qualitative methods. Palliative Medicine, 28(2), 151–157.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
7.
8.
Coast, J., et al. (2008). Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 874–882.CrossRef
9.
10.
11.
Moher, D., et al. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, 264–269.CrossRef
12.
13.
Guyatt, G., Walter, S., & Norman, G. (1987). Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of Chronic Disease, 40(2), 171–178.CrossRef
14.
Kirkwood, B., & Sterne, J. (2003). Essential Medical Statistics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
15.
Milne, H., et al. (2014). The use of global positional satellite location in dementia: A feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry, 14(160).
16.
Keeley, T. (2014). Capability as an outcome measure in randomised controlled trials, in School of Health & Population Sciences, University of Birmingham.
17.
18.
Haywood, K. L., et al. (2014). Developing a core outcome set for hip fracture trials. Bone and Joint Journal, 96B, 1016–1023.CrossRef
19.
Horwood, J., Sutton, E., & Coast, J. (2014). Evaluating the face validity of the ICECAP-O capabilities measure: A “Think Aloud” study with hip and knee arthroplasty patients. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 9(3), 667–682.CrossRef
20.
Jones, C., Edwards, R. T., & Hounsome, B. (2014). Qualitative Exploration of the Suitability of Capability Based Instruments to Measure Quality of Life in Family Carers of People with Dementia. ISRN Family Medicine.
21.
Van Leeuwen, K. M., et al. (2015). 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Davis, J. C., et al. (2017). Are the EQ-5D-3L and the ICECAP-O responsive among older adults with impaired mobility? evidence from the vancouver falls prevention cohort study. Quality of Life Research, 26, 737–747.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Horder, H., et al. (2016). A cross-cultural adaptation of the ICECAP-O: Test-retest reliability and item relevance in Swedish 70-year-olds. Societies, 6, 30.CrossRef
24.
Parsons, N., et al. (2014). Outcome assessment after hip fracture: Is EQ-5D the answer? Bone and Joint Research, 3, 69–75.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Flynn, T. N., et al. (2011). Assessing quality of life among British older people using the ICEPOP CAPability (ICECAP-O) measure. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 9(5), 317–329.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Van Leeuwen, K. M., et al. (2015). Comparing measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O, and ASCOT in frail older adults. Value in Health, 18, 35–43.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Coast, J., et al. (2008). An assessment of the construct validity of the descriptive system for the ICECAP capability measure for older people. Qualitative Life Research, 17, 967–976.CrossRef
28.
Couzner, L., et al. (2013). Measuring and valuing quality of life for public health research: Application of the ICECAP-O capability index in the Australian general population. International journal of public health, 58(3), 367–376.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Flynn, T., et al. (2011). Assessing quality of life among British older people using the ICEPOP CAPability (ICECAP-O) Measure. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 9(5), 317–329.CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Couzner, L., et al. (2013). A comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and ICECAP-O in an older post-acute patient population relative to the general population. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 11, 415–425.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Davis, J. C., et al. (2016). Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of quality of life among older adults with vascular cognitive impairment using the EQ-5D-3L and ICECAP-O. PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0153878.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Makai, P., et al. (2014) Quality of life of nursing home residents with dementia: Validation of the German version of the ICECAP-O. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e92016.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Makai, P., et al. (2012). Capabilities and quality of life in Dutch psycho-geriatric nursing homes: An exploratory study using a proxy version of the ICECAP-O. Quality of Life Research, 21, 801–812.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Sarabia-Cobo, C. M., et al. (2017). Validation of the Spanish version of the ICECAP-O for nursing home residents with dementia. PLoS ONE, 12(1), e0169354.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Hackert, M. Q. N., Exel, J. V., & Brouwer, W. B. F. (2017). Valid outcome measures in care for older people: Comparing the ASCOT and the ICECAP-O. Value in Health, 20, 936–944.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Davis, J. C., et al. (2012). Exploration of the association between quality of life, assessed by the EQ-5D and ICECAP-O, and falls risk, cognitive function and daily function, in older adults with mobility impairments. BMC Geriatrics, 12(1), 65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Davis, J. C., et al. (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, 969–977.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Makai, P., et al. (2013). A validation of the ICECAP-O in a population of post-hospitalized older people in the Netherlands. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11(1), 57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Ratcliffe, J., et al. (2011). An assessment of the construct validity of the ICECAP-O index of capability in Australian national transition care and clinical rehabilitation programmes, in MRC HTMR Workshop on The use of ICECAP measures in clinical trials and economic evaluation: Birmingham.
41.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Milte, R., et al. (2018). Quality of life in older adults following a hip fracture: An empirical comparison of the ICECAP-O and the EQ-5D-3 L instruments. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16(1), 173.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
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, 69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
45.
Couzner, L., et al. (2013). A comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and ICECAP-O in an older post-acute patient population relative to the general population. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 11(4), 415–425.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Comans, T. A., et al. (2013). Quality of life of older frail persons receiving a post-discharge program. BMC Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11(1), 58.CrossRef
47.
Barker, R. N., et al. (2017). Impact of a person-centred community rehabilitation service on outcomes for individuals with a neurological condition. Disability and rehabilitation, 39(11), 1136–1142.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Bulamu, N., et al. (2017). Impact of consumer-directed care on quality of life in the community aged care sector. Geriatrics and Gerontology International, 17(10), 1399–1405.PubMed
49.
Makai, P., et al. (2015). Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter? European Journal of Health Economics, 16, 437–450.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Patty, N. J. S., Koopmanschap, M., & Holtzer-Goor, K. (2018). A cost-effectiveness study of ICT training among the visually impaired in the Netherlands. BMC Ophthalmology, 18(1), 98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Boots, L., et al. (2018). Effectiveness of a blended care self-management program for caregivers of people with early-stage dementia (partner in balance): Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(7), e10017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Looman, W. M., et al. (2016). The effects of a pro-active integrated care intervention for frail community-dwelling older people: A quasi-experimental study with the GP-practice as single entry point Health services research. BMC Geriatrics, 16, 143CrossRef
53.
Zusman, E. Z., et al. (2017). Incontinence and Nocturia in older adults after hip fracture: Analysis of a secondary outcome for a parallel group, randomized controlled trial. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 3, 2333721417709578.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Langford, D. P., et al. (2015). Back to the future—Feasibility of recruitment and retention to patient education and telephone follow-up after hip fracture: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Patient Preference and Adherence, 9, 1343–1351.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Martinez, F. J., et al. (2014). Randomized Trial of N-acetylcysteine in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 370, 2093–2101.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Westgård, T., et al. (2018). Comprehensive geriatric assessment pilot of a randomized control study in a Swedish acute hospital: a feasibility study. Pilot and feasibility studies, 4(1), 41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Henderson, C. et al. (2013). Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): Nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 346, f1035.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Hirani, S. P., et al. (2014). The effect of telecare on the quality of life and psychological well-being of elderly recipients of social care over a 12-month period: The whole systems demonstrator cluster randomised trial. Age and Ageing, 43(1), 334–341.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Looman, W. M., et al. (2016). The effects of a pro-active integrated care intervention for frail community-dwelling older people: A quasi-experimental study with the GP-practice as single entry point. BMC Geriatrics, 16(1), 43CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
60.
Clare, L., et al. (2015). The Agewell trial: A pilot randomised controlled trial of a behaviour change intervention to promote healthy ageing and reduce risk of dementia in later life. BMC Psychiatry, 15(1), 25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Bhattacharya, D., et al. (2016). The feasibility of determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medication organisation devices compared with usual care for older people in a community setting: Systematic review, stakeholder focus groups and feasibility randomised controlled trial. Health Technology Assessment, 20(50), 1–250.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Walters, K., et al. (2017). Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: The HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT. Health Technology Assessment, 21(73), 1–128.CrossRef
63.
Quinn, C., et al. (2016). A pilot randomized controlled trial of a self-management group intervention for people with early-stage dementia (The SMART study). International Psychogeriatrics, 28, 787–800.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Williams, N., et al. (2017). Developing a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture and testing in a randomised feasibility study: Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR). Health Technology Assessment, 21(44), 1–528.CrossRef
65.
Williams, N. H., et al. (2016). Fracture in the elderly multidisciplinary rehabilitation (FEMuR): A phase II randomised feasibility study of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture. BMJ Open, 6(10), e012422.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
66.
Griffin, X. L., et al. (2016). A randomised feasibility study comparing total hip arthroplasty with and without dual mobility acetabular component in the treatment of displaced intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur the warwick hip trauma evaluation two: White two. Bone & Joint Journal, 98B(11), 1431–1435.CrossRef
67.
Griffin, X. L., et al. (2016). The Warwick hip trauma evaluation one: a randomised pilot trial comparing the X-Bolt dynamic hip plating system with sliding hip screw fixation in complex extracapsular hip fractures: WHiTE (One). Bone & Joint Journal, 98B(5), 686–689.CrossRef
68.
Neal, R. D., et al. (2017). Immediate chest X-ray for patients at risk of lung cancer presenting in primary care: randomised controlled feasibility trial. British Journal of Cancer, 116(3), 293–302.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
69.
Edmans, J., et al. (2013) Specialist geriatric medical assessment for patients discharged from hospital acute assessment units: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 347, f5874.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Millard, J. (2017). The health of older adults in community activities. Working With Older People, 21(2), 90–99.CrossRef
71.
Mitchell, PM., Roberts, TE., Barton, PM., & Coast, J. (2015) Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation. Social Science & Medicine, 139, 71–79.CrossRef
72.
Goranitis, I., et al. (2017). Maximizing health or sufficient capability in economic evaluation? A methodological experiment of treatment for drug addiction. Medical Decision Making, 37, 498–511.
73.
Kinghorn, P. (2017). Using deliberative methods to establish a sufficient state of capability well-being for use in decision-making in the contexts of public health and social care, in Health Economists’ Study Group. Aberdeen.
Metadata
Title
ICECAP-O, the current state of play: a systematic review of studies reporting the psychometric properties and use of the instrument over the decade since its publication
Authors
Louise Proud
Carol McLoughlin
Philip Kinghorn
Publication date
01-06-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 6/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02114-y

Other articles of this Issue 6/2019

Quality of Life Research 6/2019 Go to the issue

Review

Health-related quality of life among children, adolescents, and adults with bladder exstrophy–epispadias complex: a systematic review of the literature and recommendations for future research

OriginalPaper

Measuring fatigue in cancer patients: a common metric for six fatigue instruments

OriginalPaper

Modality transition on renal replacement therapy and quality of life of patients: a 10-year follow-up cohort study

OriginalPaper

The combined polymorphisms of interleukin-6-174GG genotype and interleukin-10 ATA haplotype are associated with a poor quality of life in patients with chronic hepatitis C

OriginalPaper

Advancing the use of patient-reported outcomes in practice: understanding challenges, opportunities, and the potential of health information technology

OriginalPaper

Patient versus proxy response on global health scales: no meaningful DIFference