Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: BioMed Central
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: R1
BACKGROUND: The ICECAP measures potentially offer a broader assessment of quality of life and well-being, in comparison to measures routinely used in economic evaluation, such as the EQ-5D-3 L. This broader assessment may allow measurement of the full effects of an intervention or treatment. Previous research has indicated that the ICECAP-O (for older people) and EQ-5D-3 L measure provide complementary information. This paper aims to determine similar information for the ICECAP-A (for the entire adult population) in terms of whether the measure is a substitute or complement to the EQ-5D-3 L. METHODS: Data from the BEEP trial - a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial - were used. Spearman rank correlations and exploratory factor analytic methods were used to assess whether ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3 L are measuring the same, or different, constructs. RESULTS: A correlation of 0.49 (p < 0.01) was found between the ICECAP-A tariff score and the EQ-5D-3 L index. Using the pooled items of the EQ-5D-3 L and the ICECAP-A a two factor solution was optimal, with the majority of EQ-5D-3 L items loading onto one factor and the majority of ICECAP-A items onto another. CONCLUSION: The results presented in this paper indicate that ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3 L are measuring two different constructs and provide largely different, complementary information. Results showed a similarity to results presented by Davis et al. using the ICECAP-O. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 93634563.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Sen A. Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum M, Sen A, editors. The quality of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993. p. 30-53.
    • 2. Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:167-76.
    • 3. Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:1891-901.
    • 4. Flynn TN, Huynh E, Peters TJ, Al-Janabi H, Clemens S, Moody A, Coast J. Scoring the icecap-a capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Econ. 2015;24:258-69.
    • 5. Mitchell PM, Roberts TE, Barton PM, Coast J. Assessing sufficient capability: a new approach to economic evaluation. Soc Sci Med. 2015;139:71-9.
    • 6. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK Population Norms for EQ-5D. In: Discussion paper 172: The University of York. York: Centre for Health Economics; 1993.
    • 7. EuroQol. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199-208.
    • 8. Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, Hunter M, Stubbings A. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36:551-9.
    • 9. Fransen M, Edmonds J. Reliability and validity of the EnroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology. 1999;38:807-13.
    • 10. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13:873-84.
    • 11. Linde L, Sorensen J, Ostergaard M, Horslev-Petersen K, Hetland ML. Healthrelated quality of life: validity, reliability, and responsiveness of SF-36, EQ-15D, EQ-5D, RAQoL, and HAQ in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2008;35:1528-37.
    • 12. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009; 12:S5-9.
    • 13. Coast J, Smith RD, Lorgelly P. Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: the spread of ideas in health economics. SocSciMed. 2008;67:1190-8.
    • 14. Coast J, Smith R, Lorgelly P. Should the capability approach be applied in health economics? Health Econ. 2008;17:667-70.
    • 15. Coast J. Maximisation in extra-welfarism: a critique of the current position in health economics. SocSciMed. 2009;69:786-92.
    • 16. Couzner L, Ratcliffe J, Crotty M. The relationship between quality of life, health and care transition: an empirical comparison in an older post-acute population. Health QualLife Outcomes. 2012;10:69.
    • 17. Steel C, van der Gaag M, Korrelboom K, Simon J, Phiri P, Baksh MF, Wykes T, Rose D, Rose S, Hardcastle M, et al. A randomised controlled trial of positive memory training for the treatment of depression within schizophrenia. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15:85.
    • 18. Rouse PC, Veldhuijzen Van Zanten JJ, Metsios GS, Ntoumanis N, Yu CA, Koutedakis Y, et al. Fostering autonomous motivation, physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness in rheumatoid arthritis: protocol and rationale for a randomised control trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:445.
    • 19. McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, Schuler YB, Kolsch H, Kaiser T. Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review. Trials. 2010;11:37.
    • 20. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, Decullier E, Easterbrook PJ, Von Elm E, Gamble C, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3081.
    • 21. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, Tugwell P. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.
    • 22. 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? QualLife Res 2012;22(5):969-77.
    • 23. Foster NE, Healey EL, Holden MA, Nicholls E, Whitehurst DG, Jowett S, Jinks C, Roddy E, Hay EM, team Bt. A multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and costeffectiveness of three physiotherapy-led exercise interventions for knee osteoarthritis in older adults: the BEEP trial protocol (ISRCTN: 93634563). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:254.
    • 24. Flynn T, Huynh E, Peters T, Al-Janabi H, Clemens S, Moody A, Coast J: Scoring the ICECAP-A capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Economics 2013;24(3):258-69.
    • 25. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. Chicester: Wiley; 2000.
    • 26. Kaiser HF. The application of electronic-computers to factor-analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:141-51.
    • 27. Brown JD. Choosing the right type of rotation in PCA and EFA. In: JALT testing & evaluation SIG newsletter, vol. 13. 2009. p. 20-5.
    • 28. Al-Janabi H, Peters TJ, Brazier J, Bryan S, Flynn TN, Clemens S, Moody A, Coast J: An investigation of the construct validity of the ICECAP-A capability measure. QualLife Res 2012;22(7):1831-40.
    • 29. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard AS. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5 L: mapping the EQ-5D-5 L to EQ-5D-3 L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15:708-15.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article