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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Coast, J., Smith, R., & Lorgelly, P. (2008b). Should the capability approach be applied in health economics? Editorial. Health Economics, 17, 667–670.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.
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.
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.
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327.
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.
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
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
JR developed the AQoL-8D instrument. Other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1788-9