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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 7/2017

01-07-2017 | Original Research Article

An Investigation of the Overlap Between the ICECAP-A and Five Preference-Based Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments

Authors: Lidia Engel, Duncan Mortimer, Stirling Bryan, Scott A. Lear, David G. T. Whitehurst

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 7/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) is a measure of capability wellbeing developed for use in economic evaluations. It was designed to overcome perceived limitations associated with existing preference-based instruments, where the explicit focus on health-related aspects of quality of life may result in the failure to capture fully the broader benefits of interventions and treatments that go beyond health. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments are able to capture aspects of capability wellbeing, as measured by the ICECAP-A.

Methods

Using data from the Multi Instrument Comparison project, pairwise exploratory factor analyses were conducted to compare the ICECAP-A with five preference-based HRQoL instruments [15D, Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimension (AQoL-8D), EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3), and SF-6D].

Results

Data from 6756 individuals were used in the analyses. The ICECAP-A provides information above that garnered from most commonly used preference-based HRQoL instruments. The exception was the AQoL-8D; more common factors were identified between the ICECAP-A and AQoL-8D compared with the other pairwise analyses.

Conclusion

Further investigations are needed to explore the extent and potential implications of ‘double counting’ when applying the ICECAP-A alongside health-related preference-based instruments.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Drummond M, Sculpher M, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
2.
3.
CADTH. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada, 3rd edn. Ottawa: CADTH; 2006.
4.
NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2013.
5.
Nederland Zorginstituut. Richtlijn voor het uitvoeren van economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Diemen: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2016.
6.
7.
Mooney G. Beyond health outcomes: the benefits of health care. Health Care Anal. 1998;6(2):99–105.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Lorgelly PK, Lawson KD, Fenwick EA, Briggs AH. Outcome measurement in economic evaluations of public health interventions: a role for the capability approach? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;7(5):2274–89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, et al. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(16):1–166.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Coast J. Strategies for the economic evaluation of end-of-life care: making a case for the capability approach. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(4):473–82.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Makai P, Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2014;102:83–93.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Dodge R, Daly AP, Huyton J, Sanders LD. The challenge of defining wellbeing. Int J Wellbeing. 2012;2(3):222–35.CrossRef
15.
Ryff D, Singer B. Know thyself and become what you are: a eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. J Happiness Stud. 2008;9(1):13–39.CrossRef
16.
Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL. Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(2):276–302.CrossRef
17.
Sen A. Capability and well-being, in the quality of life. Nussbaum M, Sen A, editors. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
18.
Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J. Capabilities as menus: a non-welfarist basis for QALY evaluation. J Health Econ. 2013;32(1):128–37.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1):167–76.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lorgelly PK. Choice of outcome measure in an economic evaluation: a potential role for the capability approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(8):849–55.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Coast J, Peters TJ, Natarajan L, et al. An assessment of the construct validity of the descriptive system for the ICECAP capability measure for older people. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(7):967–76.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Sutton EJ, Coast J. Development of a supportive care measure for economic evaluation of end-of-life care using qualitative methods. Palliat Med. 2014;28(2):151–7.CrossRefPubMed
23.
NICE. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. London: NICE; 2014.
24.
Flynn TN, Huynh E, Peters TJ, et al. Scoring the ICECAP-A capability instrument: estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Econ. 2015;24(3):258–69.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Davis JC, Liu-Ambrose T, Richardson CG, Bryan S. A comparison of the ICECAP-O with EQ-5D in a falls prevention clinical setting: are they complements or substitutes? Qual Life Res. 2013;22(5):969–77.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Keeley T, Coast J, Nicholls E, et al. An analysis of the complementarity of ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3L in an adult population of patients with knee pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA. Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(8):2045–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E. Multiattribute utility instruments and their use. In: Culyer AJ, editor. Encyclopedia of health economics. San Diego: Elsevier; 2014. p. 341–57.CrossRef
31.
Whitehurst DG, Norman R, Brazier JE, Viney R. Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises. Value Health. 2014;17(5):570–7.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: what is the difference? Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(7):645–9.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):328–36.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(3):209–24.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA, et al. Data used in the development of the AQoL-8D (PsyQoL) quality of life instrument. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University; 2009.
37.
Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40(2):113–28.CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, et al. SF-36v2® Health Survey: administration guide for clinical trial investigators. Lincoln: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2008.
40.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Perreault WD. Controlling order-effect bias. Public Opin Q. 1976;39(4):544–51.CrossRef
42.
Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide, 7th ed (1998–2015). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2015.
43.
Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT. Understanding statistics: exploratory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.
44.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1988.
45.
Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4(3):272–99.CrossRef
46.
Geiser C. Data analysis with Mplus. New York: Guilford Press; 2013.
47.
Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55.CrossRef
48.
Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005;10(7):1–9.
49.
Whitehurst DG, Bryan S. Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be? Value Health. 2011;14(4):531–8.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Richardson J, Chen G, Khan MA, Iezzi A. Can multi-attribute utility instruments adequately account for subjective well-being? Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(3):292–304.CrossRef
51.
Makai P, Looman W, Adang E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter? Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(4):437–50.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Goranitis I, Coast J, Day E, et al. Maximizing health or sufficient capability in economic evaluation? A methodological experiment of treatment for drug addiction. Med Decis Mak. 2016. doi:10.​1177/​0272989X16678844​.
53.
Mitchell PM, Roberts TE, Barton PM, Coast J. Assessing sufficient capability: a new approach to economic evaluation. Soc Sci Med. 2015;139:71–9.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Mitchell PM, Al-Janabi H, Richardson J, et al. The relative impacts of disease on health status and capability wellbeing: a multi-country study. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0143590.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
56.
Cookson R. QALYs and capabilities: a response to Anand. Health Econ. 2005;14(12):1287–9.CrossRef
57.
Karimi M, Brazier J, Basarir H. The capability approach: a critical review of its application in health economics. Value Health. 2016;19(6):795–9.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Engel L, Bansback N, Bryan S, et al. Exclusion criteria in national health state valuation studies: a systematic review. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(7):798–810.CrossRef
59.
Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K, et al. Comparing EQ-5D valuation studies: a systematic review and methodological reporting checklist. Med Decis Mak. 2013;34(1):8–20.CrossRef
60.
61.
Prieto L, Alonso J, Lamarca R. Classical test theory versus rasch analysis for quality of life questionnaire reduction. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
An Investigation of the Overlap Between the ICECAP-A and Five Preference-Based Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments
Authors
Lidia Engel
Duncan Mortimer
Stirling Bryan
Scott A. Lear
David G. T. Whitehurst
Publication date
01-07-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 7/2017
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0491-7

Other articles of this Issue 7/2017

PharmacoEconomics 7/2017 Go to the issue

Review Article

Emerging Use of Early Health Technology Assessment in Medical Product Development: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Practical Application

Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software

Practical Application

Regression-Based Approaches to Patient-Centered Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Review Article

Degarelix for Treating Advanced Hormone-Dependent Prostate Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Leading Article

Verification of Decision-Analytic Models for Health Economic Evaluations: An Overview

Commentary

Defining Value: The Need for a Longer, Broader View