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

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-019-02114-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Related collections

Most cited references 49

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Randomized trial of acetylcysteine in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Fernando J Martínez, Joao A de Andrade, Kevin J Anstrom … (2014)

Acetylcysteine has been suggested as a beneficial treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, although data from placebo-controlled studies are lacking. In our initial double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who had idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with mild-to-moderate impairment in pulmonary function to receive a three-drug regimen of prednisone, azathioprine, and acetylcysteine; acetylcysteine alone; or placebo. The study was interrupted owing to safety concerns associated with the three-drug regimen. The trial continued as a two-group study (acetylcysteine vs. placebo) without other changes; 133 and 131 patients were enrolled in the acetylcysteine and placebo groups, respectively. The primary outcome was the change in forced vital capacity (FVC) over a 60-week period. At 60 weeks, there was no significant difference in the change in FVC between the acetylcysteine group and the placebo group (-0.18 liters and -0.19 liters, respectively; P=0.77). In addition, there were no significant differences between the acetylcysteine group and the placebo group in the rates of death (4.9% vs. 2.5%, P=0.30 by the log-rank test) or acute exacerbation (2.3% in each group, P>0.99). As compared with placebo, acetylcysteine offered no significant benefit with respect to the preservation of FVC in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with mild-to-moderate impairment in lung function. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00650091.).

0 comments Cited 158 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities?

Ini Grewal, Jane Lewis, Terry Flynn … (2006)

Current UK policy with respect to the provision of health and social care for older people suggests that greater integration is required. Economists' attempts to assist resource allocation decisions, however, are very health focused, with concentration on the use of health-related quality of life measures. This paper reports an attempt to determine attributes for a new index clearly focusing on quality of life for older people rather than health or other influences on quality of life. In-depth interviews were conducted with 40 purposively selected informants aged 65 and over in private households to explore their views about what is important to them in terms of quality of life. Data were analysed using Framework qualitative analysis. Initial discussions tended to concentrate upon factors influencing quality of life including activities, relationships, health, wealth and surroundings. Further probing and analysis suggested five conceptual attributes: attachment, role, enjoyment, security and control. The data also suggested that the quality of informants' lives was limited by the loss of ability to pursue these attributes. So, for example, it is not poor health in itself, which reduces quality of life, but the influence of that poor health upon each informant's ability to, say, be independent, that is important. Amartya Sen's work on functioning and capability is particularly pertinent here. Using this work, it is possible to interpret the five conceptual attributes as a set of functionings-important for older people in the UK in the 21st century-but noting that it is the capacity to achieve these functionings that appears to be of importance. This suggests that further development of this measure should focus on an index of capability rather than preference-based utility.

0 comments Cited 156 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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.

Catherine Henderson, Martin Knapp, Jennifer Beecham … (2012)

To examine the costs and cost effectiveness of telehealth in addition to standard support and treatment, compared with standard support and treatment. Economic evaluation nested in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Community based telehealth intervention in three local authority areas in England. 3230 people with a long term condition (heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes) were recruited into the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth trial between May 2008 and December 2009. Of participants taking part in the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study examining acceptability, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness, 845 were randomised to telehealth and 728 to usual care. Intervention participants received a package of telehealth equipment and monitoring services for 12 months, in addition to the standard health and social care services available in their area. Controls received usual health and social care. Primary outcome for the cost effectiveness analysis was incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. We undertook net benefit analyses of costs and outcomes for 965 patients (534 receiving telehealth; 431 usual care). The adjusted mean difference in QALY gain between groups at 12 months was 0.012. Total health and social care costs (including direct costs of the intervention) for the three months before 12 month interview were £1390 (€1610; $2150) and £1596 for the usual care and telehealth groups, respectively. Cost effectiveness acceptability curves were generated to examine decision uncertainty in the analysis surrounding the value of the cost effectiveness threshold. The incremental cost per QALY of telehealth when added to usual care was £92 000. With this amount, the probability of cost effectiveness was low (11% at willingness to pay threshold of £30 000; >50% only if the threshold exceeded about £90 000). In sensitivity analyses, telehealth costs remained slightly (non-significantly) higher than usual care costs, even after assuming that equipment prices fell by 80% or telehealth services operated at maximum capacity. However, the most optimistic scenario (combining reduced equipment prices with maximum operating capacity) eliminated this group difference (cost effectiveness ratio £12 000 per QALY). The QALY gain by patients using telehealth in addition to usual care was similar to that by patients receiving usual care only, and total costs associated with the telehealth intervention were higher. Telehealth does not seem to be a cost effective addition to standard support and treatment. ISRCTN43002091.

0 comments Cited 88 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Philip Kinghorn:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9333-1962

(+44)01214147572 , p.kinghorn@bham.ac.uk

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Qual Life Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Qual Life Res

Title: Quality of Life Research

Publisher: Springer International Publishing (Cham )

ISSN (Print): 0962-9343

ISSN (Electronic): 1573-2649

Publication date (Electronic): 21 January 2019

Publication date PMC-release: 21 January 2019

Publication date (Print): 2019

Volume: 28

Issue: 6

Pages: 1429-1439

Affiliations

ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7486, GRID grid.6572.6, Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, , University of Birmingham, ; B15 2TT Edgbaston, UK

Author information

Carol McLoughlin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6861-8259

Philip Kinghorn http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9333-1962

Article

Publisher ID: 2114

DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02114-y

PMC ID: 6522451

PubMed ID: 30666550

SO-VID: 0c162301-ec16-4998-bbff-5523e7179753

License:

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

History

Date accepted : 14 January 2019

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health

Keywords: icecap-o,capability approach,systematic review,economic evaluation,validity,responsiveness

Data availability: