Abstract
Background and Objectives
Adaptive preferences occur when people subconsciously alter their views to account for the possibilities available to them. Adaptive preferences may be problematic where these views are used in resource allocation decisions because they may lead to underestimation of the true benefits of providing services. This research explored the nature and extent of both adaptation (changing to better suit the context) and adaptive preferences (altering preferences in response to restricted options) in individuals approaching the end of life (EoL).
Methods
Qualitative data from ‘thinkaloud’ interviews with 33 hospice patients, 22 close persons and 17 health professionals were used alongside their responses to three health/well-being measures for use in resource allocation decisions: EQ-5D-5L (health status); ICECAP-A (adult capability); and ICECAP-SCM (Supportive Care Measure; EoL capability). Constant comparative analysis combined a focus on both verbalised perceptions across the three groups and responses to the measures.
Results
Data collection took place between October 2012 and February 2014. Informants spoke clearly about how patients had adapted their lives in response to symptoms associated with their terminal condition. It was often seen as a positive choice to accept their state and adapt in this way but, at the same time, most patients were fully aware of the health and capability losses that they had faced. Self-assessments of health and capability generally appeared to reflect the pre-adaptation state, although there were exceptions.
Conclusion
Despite adapting to their conditions, the reference group for individuals approaching EoL largely remained a healthy, capable population, and most did not show evidence of adaptive preferences.
References
Coast J. Strategies for the economic evaluation of end-of-life care: making a case for the capability approach. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(4):473–82.
Clark DA. Adaptation, poverty and well-being: some issues and observations with special reference to the capability approach and development studies. J Hum Dev Capab. 2009;10(1):21–42.
Qizilbash M. Well-being, adaptation and human limitations. R Inst Phil Suppl. 2006;59:83–110.
Oort FJ, Visser MRM, Sprangers MAG. Formal definitions of measurement bias and explanation bias clarify measurement and conceptual perspectives on response shift. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(11):1126–37.
Sen A. Choice, welfare and measurement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1982.
Sen A. Inequality reexamined. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1992.
Alkire S. Why the capability approach? J Hum Dev. 2005;6:115–33.
Alkire S. Using the capability approach: prospective and evaluative analyses. In: Comin F, Qizilbash M, Alkire S, editors. The capability approach: concepts, measures and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008. p. 26–50.
Sen A. Capabilities, Lists, and Public Reason: Continuing the Conversation. Feminist Economics 2004;10:77–80
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.
Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, Sproston K, Lewis J, Louviere JJ, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:874–82.
Sutton E, Coast J. Development of a supportive care measure for economic evaluation of end-of-life care, using qualitative methods. Palliat Med. 2014;28:151–7.
Kinghorn P, Robinson A, Smith RD. Developing a capability-based questionnaire for assessing well-being in patients with chronic pain. Soc Indic Res. 2014;120:897–916.
Greco G, Skordis-Worrall J, Mkandawire B, Mills A. What is a good life? Selecting capabilities to assess women’s quality of life in rural Malawi. Soc Sci Med. 2015;130:69–78.
Lorgelly PK, Lorimer K, Fenwick EAL, Briggs AH, Anand P. Operationalising the capability approach as an outcome measure in public health: the development of the OCAP-18. Soc Sci Med. 2015;142:68–81.
Simon J, Anand P, Gray A, Rugkasa J, Yeeles K, Burns T. Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research. Soc Sci Med. 2013;98:187–96.
Nussbaum MC. Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Fem Econ. 2003;9(2–3):33–59.
Bailey C, Kinghorn P, Orlando R, Armour K, Perry R, Jones L, et al. The ICECAP-SCM tells you more about what I’m going through: a think-aloud study measuring quality of life among patients receiving supportive and palliative care. Palliat Med. 2016;30(7):642–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216315624890.
Ericsson K, Simon H. Verbal reports as data. Psychol Rev. 1980;87:215–51.
Ericsson K, Simon H. Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1993.
Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2005.
Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage; 1990.
Huynh E, Coast J, Rose J, Kinghorn P, Flynn T. Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life. Soc Sci Med. 2017;189:114–28.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36.
Flynn TN, Huynh E, Peters TJ, Al-Janabi H, Clemens S, Moody A, et al. Scoring the ICECAP-A capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Econ. 2015;24(3):258–69.
Horwood J, Sutton E, Coast J. Evaluating the face validity of the ICECAP-O capabilities measure: a ‘think aloud’ study with hip and knee arthroplasty patients. Appl Res Qual Life. 2014;9(3):667–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9264-4.
Al-Janabi H, Keeley T, Mitchell P, Coast J. Can capabilities be self-reported? A think aloud study. Soc Sci Med. 2013;87:116–22.
Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson; 1968.
Coast J, Jackson L. Understanding primary data analysis. In: Coast J, editor. Qualitative methods for health economics. London: Rowman & Littlefield International; 2017.
Sen A. Health: perception versus observation. BMJ. 2002;324:860–1.
Campbell CL, Bailey C, Armour K, Perry R, Orlando R, Kinghorn P, et al. A team approach to recruitment in hospice research: engaging patients, close people and health professionals. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2016;22(7):324–32.
National Audit Office. End of life care. Report by the comptroller and auditor general. London: The Stationery Office; 2008.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all those who participated in the research as well as members of the EconEndLife Advisory and Ethics Groups.
Funding
This study was funded by the European Research Council (261098 EconEndLife).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JC—conceptualisation, acquisition of funding, study design, qualitative data analysis and interpretation, supervision, preparation of original draft; CB—conduct of interviews, qualitative data analysis and interpretation, review and editing of the written draft; RO—study design, conduct of interviews, review and editing of the written draft; KA—study design, management of the research activity in the hospice, review and editing of the written draft; RP—study design, recruitment of patients, review and editing of the written draft; LJ—study design, data interpretation, review and editing of the written draft; PK—conceptualisation, conduct of interviews, data interpretation, review and editing of the written draft.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Joanna Coast led the development of the ICECAP-A and the ICECAP-SCM. Cara Bailey, Rosanna Orlando, Kathy Armour, Rachel Perry, Louise Jones and Philip Kinghorn have no known conflicts of interest.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author (JC). The data are not publicly available due to them containing information that could compromise research participant privacy/consent.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coast, J., Bailey, C., Orlando, R. et al. Adaptation, Acceptance and Adaptive Preferences in Health and Capability Well-Being Measurement Amongst Those Approaching End of Life. Patient 11, 539–546 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0310-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0310-z