IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v22y2021i7d10.1007_s10198-021-01306-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is the best approach to adopt for identifying the domains for a new measure of health, social care and carer-related quality of life to measure quality-adjusted life years? Application to the development of the EQ-HWB?

Author

Listed:
  • Tessa Peasgood

    (University of Sheffield
    University of Melbourne)

  • Clara Mukuria

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Jill Carlton

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Janice Connell

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (University of Sheffield
    University of Melbourne)

  • Karen Jones

    (University of Kent)

  • Rosemary Lovett

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE))

  • Bhash Naidoo

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE))

  • Stacey Rand

    (University of Kent)

  • Juan Carlos Rejon-Parrilla

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE))

  • Donna Rowen

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Aki Tsuchiya

    (University of Sheffield
    University of Sheffield)

  • John Brazier

    (University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Economic evaluation combines costs and benefits to support decision-making when assessing new interventions using preference-based measures to measure and value benefits in health or health-related quality of life. These health-focused instruments have limited ability to capture wider impacts on informal carers or outcomes in other sectors such as social care. Sector-specific instruments can be used but this is problematic when the impact of an intervention straddles different sectors. An alternative approach is to develop a generic preference-based measure that is sufficiently broad to capture important cross-sector outcomes. We consider the options for the selection of domains for a cross-sector generic measure including how to identify domains, who should provide information on the domains and how this should be framed. Beyond domain identification, considerations of criteria and stakeholder needs are also identified. This paper sets out the case for an approach that relies on the voice of patients, social care users and informal carers as the main source of domains and describes how the approach was operationalised in the ‘Extending the QALY’ project which developed the new measure, the EQ-HWB (EQ health and wellbeing instrument). We conclude by discussing the strengths and limitations of this approach. The new measure should be sufficiently generic to be used to consistently evaluate health and social care interventions, yet also sensitive enough to pick up important changes in quality of life in patients, social care users and carers.

Suggested Citation

  • Tessa Peasgood & Clara Mukuria & Jill Carlton & Janice Connell & Nancy Devlin & Karen Jones & Rosemary Lovett & Bhash Naidoo & Stacey Rand & Juan Carlos Rejon-Parrilla & Donna Rowen & Aki Tsuchiya & J, 2021. "What is the best approach to adopt for identifying the domains for a new measure of health, social care and carer-related quality of life to measure quality-adjusted life years? Application to the dev," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(7), pages 1067-1081, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01306-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01306-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01306-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-021-01306-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Al-Janabi, Hareth & Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N., 2008. "What do people value when they provide unpaid care for an older person? A meta-ethnography with interview follow-up," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 111-121, July.
    2. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Culyer, Anthony J. & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H., 2008. "Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 325-338, March.
    3. John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2015. "Improving Cross-Sector Comparisons: Going Beyond the Health-Related QALY," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 557-565, December.
    4. Milad Karimi & John Brazier, 2016. "Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(7), pages 645-649, July.
    5. Marc Fleurbaey, 2006. "Capabilities, Functionings and Refined Functionings," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 299-310.
    6. Forder, Julien E. & Caiels, James, 2011. "Measuring the outcomes of long-term care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(12), pages 1766-1774.
    7. Fletcher, Guy, 2013. "A Fresh Start for the Objective-List Theory of Well-Being," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 206-220, June.
    8. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Munir Khan & Aimee Maxwell, 2014. "Validity and Reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(1), pages 85-96, March.
    9. Grewal, Ini & Lewis, Jane & Flynn, Terry & Brown, Jackie & Bond, John & Coast, Joanna, 2006. "Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 1891-1901, April.
    10. Ingrid Robeyns, 2005. "Selecting Capabilities for Quality of Life Measurement," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 74(1), pages 191-215, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    2. Finch, Aureliano Paolo & Mulhern, Brendan, 2022. "Where do measures of health, social care and wellbeing fit within a wider measurement framework? Implications for the measurement of quality of life and the identification of bolt-ons," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    2. Simon, Judit & Anand, Paul & Gray, Alastair & Rugkåsa, Jorun & Yeeles, Ksenija & Burns, Tom, 2013. "Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 187-196.
    3. Kibel, Mia & Vanstone, Meredith, 2017. "Reconciling ethical and economic conceptions of value in health policy using the capabilities approach: A qualitative investigation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 97-104.
    4. Peter Makai & Willemijn Looman & Eddy Adang & René Melis & Elly Stolk & Isabelle Fabbricotti, 2015. "Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 437-450, May.
    5. Paul Anand & Laurence S. J. Roope & Anthony J. Culyer & Ron Smith, 2020. "Disability and multidimensional quality of life: A capability approach to health status assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(7), pages 748-765, July.
    6. Tessa Peasgood & Jill Carlton & John Brazier, 2019. "A Qualitative Study of the Views of Health and Social Care Decision-Makers on the Role of Wellbeing in Resource Allocation Decisions in the UK," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, February.
    7. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    8. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "QALYs and Carers," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(12), pages 1015-1023, December.
    9. Philip Kinghorn & Angela Robinson & Richard Smith, 2015. "Developing a Capability-Based Questionnaire for Assessing Well-Being in Patients with Chronic Pain," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 120(3), pages 897-916, February.
    10. Joanna Coast & Philip Kinghorn & Paul Mitchell, 2015. "The Development of Capability Measures in Health Economics: Opportunities, Challenges and Progress," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 119-126, April.
    11. Richard Smith & Paula Lorgelly & Hareth Al-Janabi & Sridhar Venkatapuram & Joanna Coast, 2012. "The Capability Approach: An Alternative Evaluation Paradigm for Health Economics?," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 39, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Sabina Alkire, 2015. "The Capability Approach and Well-Being Measurement for Public Policy," OPHI Working Papers ophiwp094.pdf, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    13. Wildman, John & McMeekin, Peter & Grieve, Eleanor & Briggs, Andrew, 2016. "Economic evaluation of integrated new technologies for health and social care: Suggestions for policy makers, users and evaluators," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 141-148.
    14. Matthew Franklin & Katherine Payne & Rachel A. Elliott, 2018. "Quantifying the Relationship between Capability and Health in Older People: Can’t Map, Won’t Map," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 79-94, January.
    15. Myles-Jay Linton & Paul Mark Mitchell & Hareth Al-Janabi & Michael Schlander & Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Jasper Ubels & Joanna Coast, 2020. "Comparing the German Translation of the ICECAP-A Capability Wellbeing Measure to the Original English Version: Psychometric Properties across Healthy Samples and Seven Health Condition Groups," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(3), pages 651-673, July.
    16. Greco, Giulia & Skordis-Worrall, Jolene & Mkandawire, Bryan & Mills, Anne, 2015. "What is a good life? Selecting capabilities to assess women's quality of life in rural Malawi," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 69-78.
    17. Philip Kinghorn & Joanna Coast, 2018. "Assessing the capability to experience a 'good death': A qualitative study to directly elicit expert views on a new supportive care measure grounded in Sen's capability approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, February.
    18. Coast, Joanna & Smith, Richard D. & Lorgelly, Paula, 2008. "Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: The spread of ideas in health economics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1190-1198, October.
    19. Pickles, Kristen & Lancsar, Emily & Seymour, Janelle & Parkin, David & Donaldson, Cam & Carter, Stacy M., 2019. "Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    20. Ross, Ian & Cumming, Oliver & Dreibelbis, Robert & Adriano, Zaida & Nala, Rassul & Greco, Giulia, 2021. "How does sanitation influence people's quality of life? Qualitative research in low-income areas of Maputo, Mozambique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01306-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.