The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 19, Issue 8, pp 1189–1205 | Cite as

Does freedom make a difference?

An empirical investigation of differences between subjective well-being and perceived capabilities amongst cancer patients
  • Philippe Tessier
  • Josselin ThuilliezEmail author
Original Research


Perceived capabilities—a subjective operationalization of Sen’s concept of capability—and subjective well-being are increasingly regarded as relevant information about individual well-being to guide resources allocation in healthcare. Although they refer to different notions, both types of measures rely on self-reported information and little is known as to how they compare together empirically. The aim of this paper is to investigate differences between measures of subjective well-being and of perceived capabilities in terms of their correlation with dimensions of health-related quality of life using panel data concerning a sample of 293 breast cancer and melanoma patients. Regression analyses suggest that the measures capture quite different aspects of the patients’ welfare. Differences in the correlation with dimensions of health also seem consistent with the underlying notions to which these measures refer. However, our findings also suggest that future researches should aim at determining how measures of perceived capabilities may be influenced by individual personality traits.


Subjective well-being Capabilities Health-related quality of life 

JEL Classification

D63 I31 



We are particularly thankful to comments from participants at the JESF (French Health Economics Conference), Marc Fleurbaey and two anonymous reviewers. Philippe Tessier benefited from a fellowship from La Ligue contre le cancer (French league against Cancer). Josselin Thuilliez benefited from a Fulbright grant and a Princeton fellowship at Princeton University.


  1. 1.
    National Health Care Institute (ZIN): Guideline for the conduct of economic evaluations in health care (Dutch Version). (2016). Accessed 22 Mar 2018
  2. 2.
    NICE: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pharmaceutical Management Agency: Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis. Methods for cost-utility analysis (Version 2.1)., Wellington, New Zealand (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Research group on economic evaluation: Guideline for economic evaluation of healthcare technologies in Japan, Tokyo (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    HAS: Choix méthodologiques pour l’évaluation économique à la HAS. Haute Autorité de Santé (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Culyer, A.J.: The normative economics of health care finance and provision. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 5, 34–58 (1989). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wagstaff, A.: QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. J. Health Econ. 10, 21–41 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brouwer, W.B.F., Culyer, A.J., van Exel, N.J.A., Rutten, F.F.H.: Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J. Health Econ. 27, 325–338 (2008). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coast, J., Smith, R.D., Lorgelly, P.: Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: the spread of ideas in health economics. Soc. Sci. Med. 67, 1190–1198 (2008). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coast, J., Flynn, T.N., Natarajan, L., Sproston, K., Lewis, J., Louviere, J.J., Peters, T.J.: Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc. Sci. Med. 67, 874–882 (2008). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Netten, A., Burge, P., Malley, J., Potoglou, D., Towers, A.-M., Brazier, J., Flynn, T., Forder, J., Wall, B.: Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol. Assess (2012). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simon, J., Anand, P., Gray, A., Rugkåsa, J., Yeeles, K., Burns, T.: Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research. Soc. Sci. Med. 98, 187–196 (2013). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vergunst, F., Jenkinson, C., Burns, T., Anand, P., Gray, A., Rugkåsa, J., Simon, J.: Psychometric validation of a multi-dimensional capability instrument for outcome measurement in mental health research OxCAP-MH. Health Qual. Life Outcomes (2017). CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anand, P., van Hees, M.: Capabilities and achievements: an empirical study. J. Socio Econ. 35, 268–284 (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Ootegem, L., Verhofstadt, E.: Perceived capabilities as an aggregated indicator for well-being. Appl. Res. Qual. Life. 10, 615–629 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coast, J., Kinghorn, P., Mitchell, P.: The development of capability measures in health economics: opportunities, challenges and progress. Patient Patient Cent. Outcomes Res. 8, 119–126 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Al-Janabi, H., Keeley, T., Mitchell, P., Coast, J.: Can capabilities be self-reported? A think aloud study. Soc. Sci. Med. 87, 116–122 (2013). CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diener, E., Oishi, S., Lucas, R.: Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and life satisfaction. In: Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J. (eds.) The oxford handbook of positive psychology, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, NY (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gandjour, A.: Is subjective well-being a useful parameter for allocating resources among public interventions? Health Care Anal. HCA J. Health Philos. Policy. 9, 437–447 (2001). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Graham, C., Higuera, L., Lora, E.: Which health conditions cause the most unhappiness? Health Econ. 20, 1431–1447 (2011). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dolan, P., Kahneman, D.: Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ. J. 118, 215–234 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dolan, P.: Developing methods that really do value the ‘Q’ in the QALY. Health Econ. Policy Law (2008). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dolan, P., Metcalfe, R.: Valuing health: a brief report on subjective well-being versus preferences. Med. Decis. Mak. Int. J. Soc. Med. Decis. Mak. 32, 578–582 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., Stone, A.A.: Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. Lancet 385, 640–648 (2015). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anand, P.: Happiness explained: what human flourishing is and what we can do to promote it. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lamu, A.N., Olsen, J.A.: The relative importance of health, income and social relations for subjective well-being: an integrative analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 152, 176–185 (2016). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Anand, P., Santos, C., Smith, R.: The measurement of capabilities. In: Basu, K., Kanbur, R. (eds.) Arguments for a better world: essays in honor of amartya sen: volume I: ethics, welfare, and measurement and volume II: society, institutions, and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Graham, C., Nikolova, M.: Bentham or aristotle in the development process? an empirical investigation of capabilities and subjective well-being. World Dev. 68, 163–179 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Ootegem, L., Verhofstadt, E.: Using capabilities as an alternative indicator for well-being. Soc. Indic. Res. 106, 133–152 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Al-Janabi, H., Peters, T.J., Brazier, J., Bryan, S., Flynn, T.N., Clemens, S., Moody, A., Coast, J.: An investigation of the construct validity of the ICECAP-A capability measure. Qual. Life Res. 22, 1831–1840 (2013). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T.N., Coast, J.: Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual. Life Res. 21, 167–176 (2012). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., White, M.: Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. J. Econ. Psychol. 29, 94–122 (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sen, A.: Development as capability expansion. In: Fukuda-Parr, S. (ed.) Readings in human development. Oxford University Press, New Delhi and New York (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sen, A.K.: Why health equity? Health Econ. 11, 659–666 (2002). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bourdon, M., Blanchin, M., Tessier, P., Campone, M., Quéreux, G., Dravet, F., Sébille, V., Bonnaud-Antignac, A.: Changes in quality of life after a diagnosis of cancer: a 2-year study comparing breast cancer and melanoma patients. Qual. Life Res. 25, 1969–1979 (2016). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    OECD: OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. OECD Publishing (2013)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    National Research Council: Subjective well-being: measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2013).
  39. 39.
    Blais, M.R., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Brière, N.M.: L’échelle de satisfaction de vie: validation canadienne-française du “Satisfaction with Life Scale”. Can. J. Behav. Sci. Can. Sci. Comport. 21, 210–223 (1989). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., Griffin, S.: The satisfaction with life scale. J. Personal. Assess. 49, 71–75 (1985). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sen, A.: Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum, S. (ed.) The quality of life, pp. 30–53. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Anand, P., Hunter, G., Carter, I., Dowding, K., Guala, F., Van Hees, M.: The development of capability indicators. J. Hum. Dev. Capab. 10, 125–152 (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hofmann, K., Schori, D., Abel, T.: Self-reported capabilities among young male adults in Switzerland: translation and psychometric evaluation of a German, French and Italian version of a closed survey instrument. Soc. Indic. Res. 114, 723–738 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Aaronson, N.K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N.J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S.B., de Haes, J.C.: The European Organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 85, 365–376 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fayers, P., Aaronson, N.K., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., Bottomley, A.: EORTC QLQC30 Scoring Manual, 3rd edn. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels (2001)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Boyce, C.J., Wood, A.M., Powdthavee, N.: Is personality fixed? Personality changes as much as “variable” economic factors and more strongly predicts changes to life satisfaction. Soc. Indic. Res. 111, 287–305 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jokela, M., Hakulinen, C., Singh-Manoux, A., Kivimäki, M.: Personality change associated with chronic diseases: pooled analysis of four prospective cohort studies. Psychol. Med. 44, 2629–2640 (2014). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Binder, M., Coad, A.: Heterogeneity in the relationship between unemployment and subjective wellbeing: a quantile approach. Economica 82, 865–891 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Binder, M., Coad, A.: From Average Joe’s happiness to Miserable Jane and Cheerful John: using quantile regressions to analyze the full subjective well-being distribution. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 79, 275–290 (2011). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Koenker, R., Bassett, G.: Regression quantiles. Econometrica. 46, 33 (1978). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Koenker, R., Hallock, K.F.: Quantile regression. J. Econ. Perspect. 15, 143–156 (2001). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cubí-Mollá, P., de Vries, J., Devlin, N.: A study of the relationship between health and subjective well-being in Parkinson’s disease patients. Value Health. 17, 372–379 (2014). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., Frijters, P.: How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Happiness methodology. Econ. J. 114, 641–659 (2004). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kahneman, D., Deaton, A.: High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 16489–16493 (2010). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Blanchflower, D.G., Oswald, A.J.: Is well-being U-shaped over the life cycle? Soc. Sci. Med. 1982(66), 1733–1749 (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schwandt, H.: Unmet aspirations as an explanation for the age U-shape in wellbeing. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 122, 75–87 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Au, N., Johnston, D.W.: Self-assessed health: what does it mean and what does it hide? Soc. Sci. Med. 121, 21–28 (2014). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dolan, P., Fujiwara, D.: Valuing mental health: how a subjective wellbeing approach can show just how much it matters. UKCP report (2014)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mukuria, C., Brazier, J.: Valuing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D health states using subjective well-being: a secondary analysis of patient data. Soc. Sci. Med. 77, 97–105 (2013). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Binder, M.: Revisiting Cheerful Jane and Miserable John: the impact of income, good health, social contacts and education declines with increasing subjective well-being. Appl. Econ. Lett. 23, 544–553 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Fang, Z.: Panel quantile regressions and the subjective well-being in urban China: evidence from RUMiC data. Soc. Indic. Res. 132, 11–24 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Deaton, A.: Income, health, and well-being around the world: evidence from the Gallup World Poll. J. Econ. Perspect. 22, 53–72 (2008). CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wolff, J., Edwards, S., Richmond, S., Orr, S., Rees, G.: Evaluating interventions in health: a reconciliatory approach. Bioethics 26, 455–463 (2012). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Nantes, Université de Tours, INSERM, SPHERE U1246NantesFrance
  2. 2.CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)-Centre d’économie de la SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations