Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of the ICECAP-O with EQ-5D in a falls prevention clinical setting: are they complements or substitutes?

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Our research explored whether two preference-based outcome measures (EuroQol EQ-5D and ICECAP-O) are complements or substitutes in the context of the Vancouver Falls Prevention Clinic for seniors.

Methods

The EQ-5D and ICECAP-O were administered once at 12 months post first clinic attendance. We report descriptive statistics for all baseline characteristics collected at first clinic visit and primary outcomes of interest. We ascertain feasibility by reporting item completion rates for the EQ-5D and ICECAP-O. Contingency tables for a priori assertions between the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D were used to demonstrate whether unique or similar aspects of benefit were captured. We used exploratory factor analysis, to ascertain the number of unique underlying latent factors associated with the attributes assessed by the EQ-5D and ICECAP-O.

Results

We report data on 215 seniors who attended the Vancouver Falls Prevention Clinic who had a mean age of 79.3 (6.2) years. The item completion rate was 99 % for the EQ-5D and 92 % for the ICECAP-O. The two contingency tables detailed few discrepancies. The results of the exploratory factor analysis indicate that the two instruments are tapping into distinct factors that are complementary.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that the EQ-5D and ICECAP-O provide complementary information.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Coast, J., Flynn, T. N., Natarajan, L., Sproston, K., Lewis, J., Louviere, J. J., et al. (2008). Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Social Science Medicine, 67(5), 874–882.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Coast, J., Peters, T. J., Natarajan, L., Sproston, K., & Flynn, T. (2008). An assessment of the construct validity of the descriptive system for the ICECAP capability measure for older people. Quality of Life Research, 17(7), 967–976.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sen, A. (1987). Commodities and capabilities. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

  4. Sen, A., & Nussbaum, M. (1993). Capability and well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Alava, M. H. (2012). Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study. Health Economics, 21(6), 715–729.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T. N., & Coast, J. (2012). Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: The ICECAP-A. Quality of Life Research, 21(1), 167–176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation for health care programmes (3rd ed.). New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Marra, C. A., Esdaile, J. M., Guh, D., Kopec, J. A., Brazier, J. E., Koehler, B. E., et al. (2004). A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Medical Care, 42(11), 1125–1131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Glendinning, C. (2003). Breaking down barriers: Integrating health and care services for older people in England. Health Policy, 65(2), 139–151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grewal, I., Lewis, J., Flynn, T., Brown, J., Bond, J., & Coast, J. (2006). Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities? Social Science Medicine, 62(8), 1891–1901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189–198.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lord, S., Sherrington, C., & Menz, H. (2001). A physiological profile approach for falls prevention. In Falls in older people. Risk factors and strategies for prevention. (pp. 221–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  14. Whitney, J. C., Lord, S. R., & Close, J. C. (2005). Streamlining assessment and intervention in a falls clinic using the timed up and go test and physiological profile assessments. Age and Ageing, 34(6), 567–571.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Coast, J., & Al-Janabi, H. (2008). http://www.icecap.bham.ac.uk/.

  16. Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bedirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., et al. (2005). The montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(4), 695–699.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yesavage, J. A., Brink, T. L., Rose, T. L., Lum, O., Huang, V., Adey, M., et al. (1982). Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 17(1), 37–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van Marwijk, H. W., Wallace, P., de Bock, G. H., Hermans, J., Kaptein, A. A., & Mulder, J. D. (1995). Evaluation of the feasibility, reliability and diagnostic value of shortened versions of the geriatric depression scale. British Journal of General Practice, 45(393), 195–199.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lord, S. R., Menz, H. B., & Tiedemann, A. (2003). A physiological profile approach to falls risk assessment and prevention. Physical Therapy, 83(3), 237–252.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Muthén, L. K., Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén&Muthén.

  22. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Makai, P., Brouwer, W. B., Koopmanschap, M. A., & Nieboer, A. P. (2011). Capabilities and quality of life in Dutch psycho-geriatric nursing homes: An exploratory study using a proxy version of the ICECAP-O. Quality of Life Research, 21(5), 801–812.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Flynn, T. N., Chan, P., Coast, J., & Peters, T. J. (2011). Assessing quality of life among British older people using the ICEPOP CAPability (ICECAP-O) measure. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 9(5), 317–329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Neumann, P. J., Greenberg, D., Olchanski, N. V., Stone, P. W., & Rosen, A. B. (2005). Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976–2001. Value in Health, 8(1), 3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Siegel, J. E., Weinstein, M. C., Russell, L. B., & Gold, M. R. (1996). Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA, 276(16), 1339–1341.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2006). Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. Journal of Health Economics, 25(2), 334–346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Marra, C. A., Marion, S. A., Guh, D. P., Najafzadeh, M., Wolfe, F., Esdaile, J. M., et al. (2007). Not all “quality-adjusted life years” are equal. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(6), 616–624.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Marra, C. A., Woolcott, J. C., Kopec, J. A., Shojania, K., Offer, R., Brazier, J. E., et al. (2005). A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Social Science Medicine, 60(7), 1571–1582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We obtained approval for the Vancouver Falls Prevention Clinical database from UBC Clinical Ethics Review Board. We thank the Vancouver Falls Prevention Clinical database participants for participating in this study. The Canadian Institutes for Health Research (TLA), Vancouver Coastal Health (SB, JCD) and the Canadian Institute for Health Emerging Team Grant (Vancouver Integrated Study on Aging (VISA)) provided funding for this study. TLA and CGR are also funded by a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award and a Canadian Institute for Health Research Canada New Investigator Award. JCD is funded by a Canadian Institute for Health Research Canada and a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Postdoctoral Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, The University of British Columbia, Research Pavilion, 7th floor, 828 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada

    Jennifer C. Davis & Stirling Bryan

  2. Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

    Jennifer C. Davis & Teresa Liu-Ambrose

  3. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

    Jennifer C. Davis, Chris G. Richardson & Stirling Bryan

  4. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Providence Health Care, Vancouver, Canada

    Chris G. Richardson

Authors
  1. Jennifer C. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teresa Liu-Ambrose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris G. Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stirling Bryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer C. Davis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davis, J.C., Liu-Ambrose, T., Richardson, C.G. et al. A comparison of the ICECAP-O with EQ-5D in a falls prevention clinical setting: are they complements or substitutes?. Qual Life Res 22, 969–977 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0225-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0225-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation