A socially interdependent choice framework for social influences in healthcare decision-making: a study protocol.

OBJECTIVES: Current choice models in healthcare (and beyond) can provide suboptimal predictions of healthcare users' decisions. One reason for such inaccuracy is that standard microeconomic theory assumes that decisions of healthcare users are made in a social vacuum. Healthcare choices, however, can in fact be (entirely) socially determined. To achieve more accurate choice predictions within healthcare and therefore better policy decisions, the social influences that affect healthcare user decision-making need to be identified and explicitly integrated into choice models. The purpose of this study is to develop a socially interdependent choice framework of healthcare user decision-making. DESIGN: A mixed-methods approach will be used. A systematic literature review will be conducted that identifies the social influences on healthcare user decision-making. Based on the outcomes of a systematic literature review, an interview guide will be developed that assesses which, and how, social influences affect healthcare user decision-making in four different medical fields. This guide will be used during two exploratory focus groups to assess the engagement of participants and clarity of questions and probes. The refined interview guide will be used to conduct the semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals and users. These interviews will explore in detail which, and how, social influences affect healthcare user decision-making. Focus group and interview transcripts will be analysed iteratively using a constant comparative approach based on a mix of inductive and deductive coding. Based on the outcomes, a social influence independent choice framework for healthcare user decision-making will be drafted. Finally, the Delphi technique will be employed to achieve consensus about the final version of this choice framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management Research Ethics Review Committee (ESHPM, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; reference ETH2122-0666).

Key Insights into Developing Qualitative Concept Elicitation Work for Outcome Measures with Children and Young People.

Qualitative concept elicitation can develop meaningful patient-reported outcome measures for children and young people; however, the methods used for concept elicitation are often underreported for this population. This paper provides in-depth insight into the methods used for concept elicitation with children and young people, with a focus on key stages of concept elicitation that are challenging or unique to doing this research with children. Drawing on our experiences of developing wellbeing measures for children and young people aged 6-15 years, we detail the processes followed in our qualitative concept elicitation work, covering issues related to sampling and recruitment, encouraging informed assent and freedom over children and young people's involvement in concept elicitation, and the use of creative and participatory methods to develop measure items. We provide reflections on the approaches taken to navigate challenging aspects of concept elicitation with children and young people. Our reflections suggest that using existing links and online recruitment methods can help to navigate organisational gatekeepers, and using appropriate processes to develop study information and obtain informed assent can ensure that research is inclusive and that children have the freedom to decide whether to be involved. Our adaptation of a creative and participatory activity to generate concepts for measure items suggests that such approaches can be engaging and may help to give children greater control over their participation. In detailing our methods, we hope to have developed a useful resource for other researchers, while highlighting the value of transparent reporting in this area.

Is well-becoming important for children and young people? Evidence from in-depth interviews with children and young people and their parents.

PURPOSE: This study explores how important well-becoming factors appear to be to children during childhood. We define well-becoming as the indicators which predict children and young people's future wellbeing and opportunities. The priority for this work was to explore whether well-becoming might be an important factor to include in outcome measures for children and young people. The inclusion of well-becoming indicators could ensure that opportunities to invest in promoting wellbeing in children's futures are not missed. METHODS: In-depth, qualitative interviews (N = 70) were undertaken with children and young people aged 6-15 years and their parents. Analysis used constant comparison and framework methods to investigate whether well-becoming factors were considered important by informants to children and young people's current wellbeing. RESULTS: The findings of the interviews suggested that children and young people and their parents are concerned with future well-becoming now, as factors such as future achievement, financial security, health, independence, identity, and relationships were identified as key to future quality of life. Informants suggested that they considered it important during childhood to aspire towards positive outcomes in children and young people's futures. CONCLUSION: The study findings, taken alongside relevant literature, have generated evidence to support the notion that future well-becoming is important to current wellbeing. We have drawn on our own work in capability wellbeing measure development to demonstrate how we have incorporated a well-becoming attribute into our measures. The inclusion of well-becoming indicators in measures could aid investment in interventions which more directly improve well-becoming outcomes for children and young people.

Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to synthesise knowledge on the relative social value of child and adult health. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative studies that evaluated the willingness of the public to prioritise treatments for children over adults were included. A search to September 2023 was undertaken. Completeness of reporting was assessed using a checklist derived from Johnston et al. Findings were tabulated by study type (matching/person trade-off, discrete choice experiment, willingness to pay, opinion survey or qualitative). Evidence in favour of children was considered in total, by length or quality of life, methodology and respondent characteristics. RESULTS: Eighty-eight studies were included; willingness to pay (n = 9), matching/person trade-off (n = 12), discrete choice experiments (n = 29), opinion surveys (n = 22) and qualitative (n = 16), with one study simultaneously included as an opinion survey. From 88 studies, 81 results could be ascertained. Across all studies irrespective of method or other characteristics, 42 findings supported prioritising children, while 12 provided evidence favouring adults in preference to children. The remainder supported equal prioritisation or found diverse or unclear views. Of those studies considering prioritisation within the under 18 years of age group, nine findings favoured older children over younger children (including for life saving interventions), six favoured younger children and five found diverse views. CONCLUSIONS: The balance of evidence suggests the general public favours prioritising children over adults, but this view was not found across all studies. There are research gaps in understanding the public's views on the value of health gains to very young children and the motivation behind the public's views on the value of child relative to adult health gains. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review is registered at PROSPERO number: CRD42021244593. There were two amendments to the protocol: (1) some additional search terms were added to the search strategy prior to screening to ensure coverage and (2) a more formal quality assessment was added to the process at the data extraction stage. This assessment had not been identified at the protocol writing stage.

Making recommendations to subsidize new health technologies in Australia: A qualitative study of decision-makers' perspectives on committee processes.

OBJECTIVES: To explore experiences of, and perspectives on, health technology assessment (HTA) processes used to produce recommendations about subsidizing new medicines, and medical technologies in Australia, from the perspectives of those experienced in these processes. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of 18 informants currently or previously members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) or the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Participants were interviewed September 2021-February 2022. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: 3 major themes were identified: contrasting technical and decision-making stages, resisting reductionist approaches, and navigating decision-making trade-offs. Participants discussed the complexities of the evaluative HTA process, especially when considering uncertainty in the evidence. As part of the current process, a deliberative decision-making stage was considered essential, allowing a flexible approach to decision making to consider factors beyond strength and quality of quantifiable data in the technical evaluation. Participants acknowledged these less-quantifiable factors were sometimes considered implicitly or were difficult to describe and this, paired with commercial in confidence requirements, presented challenges with respect to the desire to increase transparency. CONCLUSION (S): As HTA processes for new medicines and medical technologies in Australia continue to be reviewed, the balance between retaining flexibility during deliberation, confidentiality for sponsors and the public's desire for greater transparency may be a fruitful area for continuing research.

Expanding health technology assessment towards broader value: Ireland as a case study.

Healthcare innovations often represent important improvements in population welfare, but at what cost, and to whom? Health technology assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process to inform resource allocation. HTA is conventionally anchored on health maximization as the only relevant output of health services. If we accept the proposition that health technologies can generate value outside the healthcare system, resource allocation decisions could be suboptimal from a societal perspective. Incorporating "broader value" in HTA as derived from social values and patient experience could provide a richer evaluative space for informing resource allocation decisions. This article considers how HTA is practiced and what its current context implies for adopting "broader value" to evaluating health technologies. Methodological challenges are highlighted, as is a future research agenda. Ireland serves as an example of a healthcare system that both has an explicit role for HTA and is evolving under a current program of reform to offer universal, single-tier access to public services. There are various ways in which HTA processes could move beyond health, including considering the processes of care delivery and/or expanding the evaluative space to some broader concept of well-being. Methods to facilitate the latter exist, but their adaptation to HTA is still emerging. We recommend a multi-stakeholder working group to develop and advance an international agenda for HTA that captures welfare/benefit beyond health.

Estimating loss in capability wellbeing in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study of the general adult population in the UK, Australia and the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate capability wellbeing lost from the general adult populations in the UK, Australia and the Netherlands in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated social restrictions, including lockdowns. DESIGN: Cross-sectional with recalled timepoints. SETTING: Online panels in the UK, Australia and the Netherlands conducted in February 2021 (data collected 26 January-2 March 2021). PARTICIPANTS: Representative general adult (≥ 18 years old) population samples in the UK (n = 1,017), Australia (n = 1,011) and the Netherlands (n = 1,017) MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Participants completed the ICECAP-A capability wellbeing measure in February 2021, and for two recalled timepoints during the initial lockdowns in April 2020 and in February 2020 (prior to COVID-19 restrictions in all three countries). ICECAP-A scores on a 0-1 no capability-full capability scale were calculated for each timepoint. Societal willingness to pay estimates for a year of full capability (YFC) was used to place a monetary value associated with change in capability per person and per country. Paired t tests were used to compare changes in ICECAP-A and YFC from pre- to post-COVID-19-related restrictions in each country. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) loss of capability wellbeing during the initial lockdown was 0.100 (0.17) in the UK, 0.074 (0.17) in Australia and 0.049 (0.12) in the Netherlands. In February 2021, losses compared to pre-lockdown were 0.043 (0.14) in the UK, 0.022 (0.13) in Australia and 0.006 (0.11) in the Netherlands. In monetary terms, these losses were equivalent to £14.8 billion, AUD$8.6 billion and €2.1 billion lost per month in April 2020 and £6.4 billion, A$2.6 billion and €260 million per month in February 2021 for the UK, Australia and the Netherlands, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial losses in capability wellbeing in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research is required to understand the specific impact of particular COVID-19 restrictions on people's capabilities.

A think-aloud study of the feasibility of patients with end-stage organ failure completing the ICECAP-SCM.

BACKGROUND: The ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (SCM) is a self-complete measure developed to inform economic decision making at the end-of-life. Previous research has demonstrated its feasibility in hospice and nursing home settings. This is the first study of its use with patients on the organ failure trajectory. AIM: To determine the feasibility of using the ICECAP-SCM with patients experiencing end-stage organ failure in a hospital setting. DESIGN: Participants were asked to 'think aloud' when completing the ICECAP-SCM, ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L measures. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and examined for errors in comprehension, retrieval, judgement, and response by five raters. Qualitative data were collected to explore reasons for errors in completing the measures and participants' views about the measures. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Sixty patients (with end-stage renal failure n = 18; end-stage heart failure n = 21; end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease n = 21) participated. Senior clinicians applied prognostic criteria to determine eligibility. RESULTS: Participants reported that the measures were acceptable, clear, and easy to complete. Error rates in completing the measures were low (ICECAP-A = 3%,and ICECAP-SCM = 5.7% and EQ-5D-5L = 6.3%). There was some variation in responses between patients with different end-stage conditions, particularly those with symptom fluctuation. Some patients had not considered their end-of-life (i.e. advance care planning) and reported finding questions about this difficult to answer. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to use the ICECAP-SCM with patients with end-stage organ failure receiving care in hospital settings. This study provides evidence for researchers and policy makers involved in measuring end-of-life care globally. The ICECAP-SCM can be recommended for research with patients in end-stage organ failure to appropriately capture the broader benefits of end-of-life care.

An analysis of the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM capability wellbeing measure in a palliative care hospice setting.

BACKGROUND: For outcome measures to be useful in health and care decision-making, they need to have certain psychometric properties. The ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM), a seven attribute measure (1. Choice, 2. Love and affection, 3. Physical suffering, 4. Emotional suffering, 5. Dignity, 6. Being supported, 7. Preparation) developed for use in economic evaluation of end-of-life interventions, has face validity and is feasible to use. This study aimed to assess the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM in hospice inpatient and outpatient settings. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data collated from two studies, one focusing on palliative care day services and the other on constipation management, undertaken in the same national hospice organisation across three UK hospices, was conducted. Other quality of life and wellbeing outcome measures used were the EQ-5D-5L, McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire - Expanded (MQOL-E), Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and Palliative Outcomes Scale Symptom list (POS-S). The construct validity of the ICECAP-SCM was assessed, following hypotheses generation, by calculating correlations between: (i) its domains and the domains of other outcome measures, (ii) its summary score and the other measures' domains, (iii) its summary score and the summary scores of the other measures. The responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM was assessed using anchor-based methods to understand change over time. Statistical analysis consisted of Spearman and Pearson correlations for construct validity and paired t-tests for the responsiveness analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-eight participants were included in the baseline analysis. Five strong correlations were found with ICECAP-SCM attributes and items on the other measures: four with the Emotional suffering attribute (Anxiety/depression on EQ-5D-5L, Psychological and Burden on MQOL-E and Feeling down, depressed or hopeless on PHQ-2), and one with Physical suffering (Weakness or lack of energy on POS-S). ICECAP-SCM attributes and scores were most strongly associated with the MQOL-E measure (0.73 correlation coefficient between summary scores). The responsiveness analysis (n = 36) showed the ICECAP-SCM score was responsive to change when anchored to changes on the MQOL-E over time (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial evidence of construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM in hospice settings and suggests its potential for use in end-of-life care research.

Comparison of capability and health-related quality of life instruments in capturing aspects of mental well-being in people with schizophrenia and depression.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that assessing outcomes in terms of capability provides information beyond that of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for outcome evaluation in mental health research and clinical practice. AIMS: To assess similarities and differences in the measurement properties of the ICECAP-A capability measure and Oxford Capabilities Questionnaire for Mental Health (OxCAP-MH) in people with schizophrenia experiencing depression, and compare these measurement properties with those of (a) the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L and EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) and (b) mental health-specific (disease-specific) measures. METHOD: Using data for 100 patients from the UK, measurement properties were compared using correlation analyses, Bland-Altman plots and exploratory factor analysis. Responsiveness was assessed by defining groups who worsened, improved or remained unchanged, based on whether there was a clinically meaningful change in the instrument scores between baseline and 9-month follow-up assessments. RESULTS: The two capability instruments had stronger convergent validity with each other (Spearman's rho = 0.677) than with the HRQoL (rho = 0.354-0.431) or the mental health-specific (rho = 0.481-0.718) instruments. The OxCAP-MH tended to have stronger correlations with mental health-specific instruments than the ICECAP-A, whereas the ICECAP-A had slightly stronger correlation with the EQ-VAS. Change scores on the capability instruments correlated weakly with change scores on the HRQoL scales (rho = 0.131-0.269), but moderately with those on mental health-specific instruments for the ICECAP-A (rho = 0.355-0.451) and moderately/strongly on the OxCAP-MH (rho = 0.437-0.557). CONCLUSIONS: Assessing outcomes in terms of capabilities for people with schizophrenia and depression provided more relevant, mental health-specific information than the EQ-5D-5L or the EQ-VAS. The ICECAP-A and the OxCAP-MH demonstrated similar psychometric properties, but the OxCAP-MH was more correlated with disease-specific instruments.

Preference Elicitation Techniques Used in Valuing Children's Health-Related Quality-of-Life: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Valuing children's health states for use in economic evaluations is globally relevant and is of particular relevance in jurisdictions where a cost-utility analysis is the preferred form of analysis for decision making. Despite this, the challenges with valuing child health mean that there are many remaining questions for debate about the approach to elicitation of values. The aim of this paper was to identify and describe the methods used to value children's health states and the specific issues that arise in the use of these methods. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases to identify studies published in English since 1990 that used preference elicitation methods to value child and adolescent (under 18 years of age) health states. Eligibility criteria comprised valuation studies concerning both child-specific patient-reported outcome measures and child health states defined in other ways, and methodological studies of valuation approaches that may or may not have yielded a value set algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 77 eligible studies were identified from which data on country setting, aims, condition (general population or clinically specific), sample size, age of respondents, the perspective that participants were asked to adopt, source of values (respondents who completed the preference elicitation tasks) and methods questions asked were extracted. Extracted data were classified and evaluated using narrative synthesis methods. The studies were classified into three groups: (1) studies comparing elicitation methods (n = 30); (2) studies comparing perspectives (n = 23); and (3) studies where no comparisons were presented (n = 26); selected studies could fall into more than one group. Overall, the studies varied considerably both in methods used and in reporting. The preference elicitation tasks included time trade-off, standard gamble, visual analogue scaling, rating/ranking, discrete choice experiments, best-worst scaling and willingness to pay elicited through a contingent valuation. Perspectives included adults' considering the health states from their own perspective, adults taking the perspective of a child (own, other, hypothetical) and a child/adolescent taking their own or the perspective of another child. There was some evidence that children gave lower values for comparable health states than did adults that adopted their own perspective or adult/parents that adopted the perspective of children. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in reporting limited the conclusions that can be formed about which methods are most suitable for eliciting preferences for children's health and the influence of differing perspectives and values. Difficulties encountered in drawing conclusions from the data (such as lack of consensus and poor reporting making it difficult for users to choose and interpret available values) suggest that reporting guidelines are required to improve the consistency and quality of reporting of studies that value children's health using preference-based techniques.

What does a "good life" mean for people living with dementia? A protocol for a think-aloud study informing the value of care.

Introduction: Economic evaluation currently focuses almost exclusively on the maximization of health, using the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) framework with instruments such as the EQ-5D, with a limited number of health-focused dimensions providing the assessment of health benefit. This evaluative framework is likely to be insufficient for setting priorities in dementia care because of its exclusive concern with health. Data are also often collected from the perspective of a proxy, limiting the voice of those living with dementia in decision-making. This protocol describes a research project that aims to gather the perspectives of people living with dementia, their insights, and preferences for assessing their quality of life to inform economic evaluation outcome measurement and design with a goal of creating a more robust evidence base for the value of healthcare services. Specifically, this study will elucidate what a "good life" means to people living with dementia and how well instruments currently used in economic evaluation meet this description. This project will further test the acceptability of capability wellbeing instruments as self-report instruments and compare them to generic and dementia-specific preference-based instruments. Methods and analysis: People living with dementia, diagnosed, or waiting to receive a formal diagnosis and with the capacity to participate in research, will be invited to participate in an hour "think aloud" interview. Participants will be purposefully selected to cover a range of dementia diagnoses, age, and sex, recruited through the integrated care, geriatric, and post-diagnostic clinics at St James' and Tallaght University Hospitals and dementia support groups in the Ireland. During the interview, participants will be invited to reflect on a "good life" and "think aloud" while completing four economic quality of life instruments with a perspective that goes beyond health (AD-5D/QOL-AD, AQOL-4D, ICECAP-O, ICECAP-SCM). An interviewer will then probe areas of difficulty when completing the instruments in a semi-structured way. The analysis will identify the frequency of errors in comprehension, retrieval, judgment, and response from verbatim transcripts. Qualitative data will be analyzed using constant comparison. Ethics: The St James's Hospital and Tallaght University Hospital Joint Research Ethics Committee approved the study (Approval Date: 11 April 2022).

Challenges in Using Recommended Quality of Life Measures to Assess Fluctuating Health: A Think-Aloud Study to Understand How Recall and Timing of Assessment Influence Patient Responses.

BACKGROUND: It can be challenging to measure quality of life to calculate quality-adjusted life-years in recurrent fluctuating health states, as quality of life can constantly change. It is not clear how patients who experience fluctuations complete measures and how assessment timing and recall influence responses. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand how patients with fluctuating health complete widely recommended and commonly used measures (EQ-5D-5L, EORTC QLQ-C30 and SF-12) and the extent to which the recall period ('health today', 'past week' and 'past 4 weeks') and timing of assessment influence the way that patients complete these questionnaires. METHODS: Twenty-four adult patients undergoing chemotherapy for urological, gynaecological or bowel cancers in the UK participated in think-aloud interviews, while completing the measures, completed a pictorial task illustrating how quality of life changed during the chemotherapy cycle and took part in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using constant comparison. RESULTS: Patients were consistent in describing their quality of life as changing considerably throughout a chemotherapy cycle. The shorter recall period of 'health today' does not adequately represent patients' quality of life because of fluctuations, patients remarked they could give a different answer depending on the timing of assessment, and many struggled to combine the "ups and downs" to answer measures with longer recall ('past week' and 'past 4 weeks'). Across all measures, patients attempted to provide averages, adopt the peak-end rule or focus on the best part of their experience. Patients commonly used more than one approach when completing a given questionnaire as well as across questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who experience recurrent fluctuations in health are unable to provide meaningful responses about their quality of life when completing quality-of-life measures due to the recall period and timing of assessment. The use of such responses to calculate health state values in economic evaluations to inform resource allocation decisions in fluctuating conditions must be questioned.

Measurement Instruments of Productivity Loss of Paid and Unpaid Work: A Systematic Review and Assessment of Suitability for Health Economic Evaluations From a Societal Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed (1) to perform a systematic literature review of instruments for measuring productivity loss of paid and unpaid work and (2) to assess the suitability (in terms of identification, measurement, and valuation) of these instruments for use in health economic evaluations from a societal perspective. METHODS: Articles published from 2018 were sourced from PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, and Econlit. Using 2 separate search strategies, eligible economic evaluations and validation studies were selected and unique measurement instruments identified. A data-extraction form was developed by studying previous literature and consulting an international panel of experts in the field of productivity costs. This data-extraction form was applied to assess the suitability of instruments for use in economic evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 5982 articles were retrieved from the databases, of which 99 economic evaluations and 9 validation studies were included in the review. A total of 42 unique measurement instruments were identified. Nine instruments provided quantified measures of absenteeism, presenteeism, and unpaid work. Five instruments supplied the necessary information to enable the use of at least 1 common valuation method. The Health and Labour Questionnaire-Short Form, Health and Labour Questionnaire, and Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire met both criteria. Nevertheless, the developers replaced the Health and Labour Questionnaire-Short Form and Health and Labour Questionnaire by the more recently developed Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Although many instruments for measuring productivity loss were identified, most were not suitable for capturing productivity changes for economic evaluations from a societal perspective. Future research can benefit from this study by making an informed instrument choice for the measurement of productivity loss of paid and unpaid work.

Challenges in developing capability measures for children and young people for use in the economic evaluation of health and care interventions.

Methods for measuring outcomes suitable for economic evaluations of health and care interventions have primarily focused on adults. The validity of such methods for children and young people is questionable in areas including the outcome domains measured and how they are measured and valued, with most existing measures narrowly focusing on health. Novel methods for assessing benefits beyond health by focusing on a person's capability have also concentrated on adults to date. This paper aims to set out the rationale for capability measures in children and young people. It argues for the need to expand the evaluative space beyond health functioning towards broader capabilities, with children and young people playing an integral role in capability measure development. Drawing from existing literature, specific challenges related to the identification, measurement, and valuation of capabilities in children and young people are also discussed. Finally, the practical implications for conducting economic evaluation when measuring and valuing capabilities at different stages across the life-course are illustrated. We develop an alternative framework based on conceiving capabilities as evolving across the life-course. This framework may also be helpful in thinking about how to model health outcomes across the life-course.

Measuring capability wellbeing in adults at different stages of life for use in economic evaluation of health and care interventions: a qualitative investigation in people requiring kidney care.

PURPOSE: Capability wellbeing measures, such as the ICECAP measures, have been proposed for use in economic evaluations to capture broader outcomes of health and care interventions. The ICECAP measures have been developed to reflect capabilities at different stages of life. Some patient groups include patients of different ages and at different stages of life, so it is not always apparent which ICECAP measure is most relevant. This study explores the impact of age and life stage on completion, where both ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O were completed by the same patient. METHODS: A think-aloud study, and an associated semi-structured interview were conducted with people receiving kidney care as a renal outpatient, kidney transplant outpatient, or through receiving facility-based haemodialysis. Qualitative analysis focused on (1) differences in responses across measures by individuals, where attributes had conceptual overlap, (2) key factors in self-reported capability levels, and (3) measure preference. RESULTS: Thirty participants were included in the study, with a mix of older and younger adults. Attributes with similar wording across measures produced similar responses compared to attributes where wording differed. Age and health were key factors for self-reported capability levels. ICECAP-A was slightly preferred overall, including by older adults. CONCLUSION: This study suggests use of ICECAP-A in patients with certain chronic health conditions that include a mix of adults across the life course. This study highlights the importance of considering the stage of life when using capability measures and in economic evaluations of health and care interventions more generally.

"It is not a scientific number it is just a feeling": Populating a multi-dimensional end-of-life decision framework using deliberative methods.

The capability approach is potentially valuable for economic evaluation at the end of life because of its conceptualization of wellbeing as freedom and the potential for capturing outcomes for those at end of life and those close to persons at the end of life. For decision making, however, this information needs to be integrated into current evaluation paradigms. This research explored weights for an integrated economic evaluation framework using a deliberative approach. Twelve focus groups were held (38 members of the public, 29 "policy makers," seven hospice volunteers); budget pie tasks were completed to generate weights. Constant comparison was used to analyze qualitative data, exploring principles behind individuals' weightings. Average weights elicited from members of the general population and policy makers for the importance that should be given to close persons (vs. patients) were very similar, at around 30%. A "sliding scale" of weights between health gain and the capability for a good death resulted from the policy maker and volunteer groups, with increasing weight given to the capability for a good death as the trajectory got closer to death. These weights can be used in developing a more comprehensive framework for economic evaluation at end of life.

Valuing end-of-life care: translation and content validation of the ICECAP-SCM measure.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of care strategies at the end of life is particularly important due to the globally increasing proportion of very old people in need of care. The ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure is a self-complete questionnaire developed in the UK to evaluate palliative and supportive care by measuring patient's wellbeing in terms of 'capability'. It is a new measure with high potential for broad and international use. The aims of this study were the translation of the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure from English into German and the content validation of this version. METHODS: A multi-step and team-based translation process based on the TRAPD model was performed. An expert survey was carried out to assess content validity. The expert panel (n = 20) consisted of four expert groups: representative seniors aged 65+, patients aged 65+ living in residential care, patients aged 65+ receiving end-of-life care, and professionals in end-of-life care. RESULTS: The German version of the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure showed an excellent content validity on both item- and scale-level. In addition, a high agreement regarding the length of the single items and the total length of the questionnaire as well as the number of answer categories was reached. CONCLUSIONS: The German ICECAP-SCM is a valid tool to assess the quality of life at the end of life that is suitable for use in different settings. The questionnaire may be utilized in multinational clinical and economic evaluations of end-of-life care.

Test-guided dietary management of eczema in children: A randomized controlled feasibility trial (TEST).

BACKGROUND: Parents commonly ask about food allergy tests, to find a cause for their child's eczema, yet the value of routine testing is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a clinical trial comparing test-guided dietary advice versus usual care, for the management of eczema, is feasible. METHODS: Children (>3 months and <5 years) with mild-to-severe eczema, recruited via primary care, were individually randomized (1:1) to intervention or usual care. Intervention participants underwent structured allergy history and skin prick tests (SPT) with dietary advice for cow's milk, hen's egg, wheat, peanut, cashew and codfish. All participants were followed up for 24 weeks. A sample of doctors and parents was interviewed. Registration ISRCTN15397185. RESULTS: From 1059 invitation letters sent to carers of potentially eligible children, 84 were randomized (42 per group) with mean age of 32.4 months (SD 13.9) and POEM of 8.7 (4.8). Of the 42, 6 (14%) intervention participants were advised to exclude one or more foods, most commonly egg, peanut or milk. By participant, 1/6 had an oral food challenge (negative); 3/6 were told to exclude until review in allergy clinic; and 6/6 advised a home dietary trial (exclusion and reintroduction of food over 4-6 weeks) - with 1/6 partially completing it. Participant retention (four withdrawals) and data completeness (74%-100%) were acceptable and contamination low (two usual care participants had allergy tests). There were three minor SPT-related adverse events. During follow-up, 12 intervention and 8 usual care participants had minor, unrelated adverse events plus one unrelated hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to recruit, randomize and retain children with eczema from primary care into a trial of food allergy screening and to collect the outcomes of interest. Changes to recruitment and inclusion criteria are needed in a definitive trial, to ensure inclusion of younger children from more diverse backgrounds.