Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 317–329 | Cite as

Assessing quality of life among British older people using the ICEPOP CAPability (ICECAP-O) measure

  • Terry N. FlynnEmail author
  • Phil Chan
  • Joanna Coast
  • Tim J. Peters
Original Research Article



The Investigating Choice Experiments for the Preferences of Older People (ICEPOP) programme developed a capability-based measure of general quality of life (QOL): the ICEPOP CAPability (ICECAP-O) instrument. ICECAP-O was originally intended for use in the economic evaluation of health and social care interventions, but there is increasing interest in using it to quantify differences in QOL in cross-sectional data.


The objective of this study was to assess the construct validity of the overall ICECAP-O scores and quantify differences in QOL associated with various factors in a multivariable regression model among residents of a British city.


ICECAP-O was administered as part of a survey of 4304 citizens of a British city. QOL values in only those respondents aged ≥65 years (n= 809) were compared across subgroups using univariable analyses and multivariable regression models.


QOL values were associated with differences in responses to a variety of questions about respondents’ socioeconomic status, locality, contact with others, participation, health and social support. Multivariable regression results showed that poor physical and psychological health were associated with 4–7% lower QOL. Living alone and infrequent socializing were each associated with an approximately 2.5% impairment in QOL. Feeling unsafe after dark was associated with an 8% impairment, whilst those without a faith experienced 5% lower QOL on average. Distribution of ICECAP-O values by electoral ward enabled the identification of areas of deprivation, although the associations were strong only for enjoyment and control.


ICECAP-O provides policy makers with robust quantitative evidence of differences in QOL. It offers local government an opportunity to evaluate the effects of health and other interventions, and to make comparisons across sectors for which it is responsible. It also demonstrates good ability to compare impairments in QOL associated with sociodemographic, health and attitudinal variables.


Life Satisfaction Unpaid Carer Valuation Exercise Social Empowerment Hospital Access 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors thank all those who participated in the survey, members of the Bristol Partnership who funded the survey and Bristol City Council’s Quality of Life team. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.


  1. 1.
    Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn TN, et al. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med 2006; 62: 1891–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    University of Birmingham. ICECAP capability measures [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Jul 22]
  3. 3.
    Sen A. Choice, welfare and measurement. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1982Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hyde M, Wiggins RD, Higgs P, et al. A measure of quality of life in early old age: the theory, development and properties of a needs satisfaction model (CASP-19). Aging Ment Health 2003; 7(3): 186–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Higgs P, Hyde M, Wiggins RD, et al. Researching quality of life in early old age: the importance of the sociological dimension. Soc Pol Admin 2003; 37(3): 239–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67(5): 874–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coast J, Peters TJ, Natarajan L, et al. An assessment of the construct validity of the descriptive system for the ICECAP capability measure for older people. Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 967–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 2007; 26(1): 171–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J Math Psychol 2008; 52: 281–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 2008; 29: 94–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brown J, Bowling A, Flynn TN. Models of quality of life: a taxonomy, overview and systematic review of the literature. European Forum on Population Ageing Research/ European Group on Quality of Life Extending quality of life in old age (EQUAL). 2004 May [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Jul 22]Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Department for Communities and Local Government. Indices of deprivation 2007 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Jul 22]Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    South West Public Health Observatory. Datasets to support joint strategic needs assessment: local authority and county data [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Jul 22]
  15. 15.
    South West Public Health Observatory. Index of multiple deprivation 2007 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Jul 22]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coast J, Peters TJ, Inglis A. Factors associated with inappropriate emergency hospital admission in the UK. Int J Qual Health Care 1996; 8(1): 31–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patel RR, Peters TJ, Murphy DJ, ALSPAC Study Team. Prenatal risk factors for caesarian section: analysis of the ALSPAC cohort of 12944 women in England. Int J Epidemiol 2005; 34(2): 353–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peters TJ, Somerset M, Campbell R, et al. Variables associated with attendance at, and the perceived helpfulness of, meetings for people with multiple sclerosis. Health Soc Care Community 2003; 11(1): 19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sherriff A, Peters TJ, Henderson J, et al. Risk factor associations with wheezing patterns in children followed longitudinally from birth to 3 1/2 years. Int J Epidemiol 2001; 30(6): 1473–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med 2001; 33(5): 328–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Al-Janabi H, Coast J, Flynn TN. What do people value when they provide unpaid care for an older person? A meta-ethnography with interview follow-up. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67: 111–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harris P. The misunderstood caregiver? A qualitative study of the male caregiver of Alzheimer’s disease victims. Gerontologist 1993; 33(4): 551–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. Epub 2011 May 20Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry N. Flynn
    • 1
    Email author
  • Phil Chan
    • 2
  • Joanna Coast
    • 3
  • Tim J. Peters
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Choice (CenSoC)University of Technology SydneyBroadwayAustralia
  2. 2.Bristol City CouncilBristolUK
  3. 3.Health Economics UnitUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  4. 4.School of Clinical SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations