Does freedom make a difference?

An empirical investigation of differences between subjective well-being and perceived capabilities amongst cancer patients

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The QLQ-C30 questionnaire can be consulted freely on the EORTC website (accessed on 08/22/2017).

References

  1. 1.

    National Health Care Institute (ZIN): Guideline for the conduct of economic evaluations in health care (Dutch Version). https://english.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publications/reports/2016/06/16/guideline-for-economic-evaluations-in-healthcare (2016). Accessed 22 Mar 2018

  2. 2.

    NICE: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2013)

  3. 3.

    Pharmaceutical Management Agency: Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis. Methods for cost-utility analysis (Version 2.1)., Wellington, New Zealand (2012)

  4. 4.

    Research group on economic evaluation: Guideline for economic evaluation of healthcare technologies in Japan, Tokyo (2013)

  5. 5.

    Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada (2006)

  6. 6.

    HAS: Choix méthodologiques pour l’évaluation économique à la HAS. Haute Autorité de Santé (2011)

  7. 7.

    Culyer, A.J.: The normative economics of health care finance and provision. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 5, 34–58 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/5.1.34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Wagstaff, A.: QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. J. Health Econ. 10, 21–41 (1991)

    CAS  Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.07.003

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.06.027

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.015

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16160

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.019

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0825-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Anand, P., van Hees, M.: Capabilities and achievements: an empirical study. J. Socio Econ. 35, 268–284 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.003

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-014-9343-1

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0080-1

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.035

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013814702029

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Graham, C., Higuera, L., Lora, E.: Which health conditions cause the most unhappiness? Health Econ. 20, 1431–1447 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Dolan, P., Kahneman, D.: Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ. J. 118, 215–234 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02110.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Dolan, P.: Developing methods that really do value the ‘Q’ in the QALY. Health Econ. Policy Law (2008). https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744133107004355

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X11435173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., Stone, A.A.: Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. Lancet 385, 640–648 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.01.046

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Van Ootegem, L., Verhofstadt, E.: Using capabilities as an alternative indicator for well-being. Soc. Indic. Res. 106, 133–152 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9799-4

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0293-5

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9927-2

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.001

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.762

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1244-3

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    OECD: OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. OECD Publishing (2013)

  38. 38.

    National Research Council: Subjective well-being: measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2013). https://doi.org/10.17226/18548

  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). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079854

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Sen, A.: Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum, S. (ed.) The quality of life, pp. 30–53. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1993)

    Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880802675366

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0170-1

    Article  Google 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)

    CAS  Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0006-z

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714000257

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Binder, M., Coad, A.: Heterogeneity in the relationship between unemployment and subjective wellbeing: a quantile approach. Economica 82, 865–891 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/ecca.12150

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Koenker, R., Bassett, G.: Regression quantiles. Econometrica. 46, 33 (1978). https://doi.org/10.2307/1913643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Koenker, R., Hallock, K.F.: Quantile regression. J. Econ. Perspect. 15, 143–156 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.4.143

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.002

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00235.x

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011492107

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.030

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.11.011

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.007

    Article  PubMed  Google 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)

  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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.012

    Article  PubMed  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2015.1085635

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1126-z

    Article  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.2.53

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01888.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Josselin Thuilliez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tessier, P., Thuilliez, J. Does freedom make a difference?. Eur J Health Econ 19, 1189–1205 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-0967-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Subjective well-being
  • Capabilities
  • Health-related quality of life

JEL Classification

  • D63
  • I31