1
|
Sado M, Nagashima K, Koreki A. Scoring System for the Japanese Version of the ICECAP-A. Psychol Res Behav Manag 2025; 18:703-717. [PMID: 40129962 PMCID: PMC11932030 DOI: 10.2147/prbm.s480328] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2024] [Accepted: 03/05/2025] [Indexed: 03/26/2025] Open
Abstract
Purpose This study aimed to develop a value set for the Japanese version of the Investigating Choice Experiments CAPability Measure for Adults (ICECAP-A). Patients and Methods A total of 400 participants were recruited. Survey 1, conducted utilizing a self-report format, collected demographic data and responses to well-being scales, including the ICECAP-A, the Investigating Choice Experiments CAPability Measure for Older People (ICECAP-O), and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), among others. Participants who completed Survey 1 were invited to participate in Survey 2. In Survey 2, an interview-based assessment, participants engaged in best-worst scaling, where they identified the most and least favorable situations in each of the 16 hypothetical scenarios. A mixed-mixed multinomial logit (MM-MNL) model was utilized to estimate preference parameters, accounting for individual heterogeneity and latent classes. Results The estimated parameters and tariffs indicated that all five attributes contributed to an individual's capability for well-being, consistent with prior studies. The attributes were ranked in order of importance as follows: "enjoyment" (24.8% of the space), "attachment" (22.1%), "stability" (19.5%), "autonomy" (17.9%), and "achievement" (15.6%). For "enjoyment" and "attachment", the differences between levels 1 and 2 and between levels 2 and 3 were equally large. In contrast, for all other attributes, the greatest differences were observed between levels 1 and 2. Across all attributes, the differences between levels 3 and 4 were comparatively smaller. Conclusion We developed a Japanese version of the ICECAP-A and demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing best-worst scaling in a non-European context. This approach allows for a more precise evaluation of quality of life (QoL) among individuals with chronic conditions, caregivers, and the general population. Future research should assess the scale's sensitivity in capturing changes in capability over time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mitsuhiro Sado
- Keio University Health Center, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
- Department of Neuropsychiatry, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
- Keio University Mindfulness & Stress Research Center, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kengo Nagashima
- Biostatistics Unit, Clinical and Translational Research Center, Keio University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Akihiro Koreki
- Department of Neuropsychiatry, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
- Keio University Mindfulness & Stress Research Center, Tokyo, Japan
- Department of Psychiatry, National Hospital Organization Shimofusa Psychiatric Medical Center, Chiba, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hara K, Nakabe T, Tanaka M, Imanaka Y. Measuring the quality of life of long-term care service users in Japan: a cross-sectional questionnaire study. BMC Geriatr 2022; 22:955. [PMID: 36510174 PMCID: PMC9746158 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-022-03662-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2022] [Accepted: 11/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In Japan's super-aging society, the number of long-term care service providers is increasing, and the quality of care is a matter of concern. One aspect of the quality of care is the user's quality of life. The questionnaires EQ-5D and WHO-5 are representative indicators of quality of life. Herein, we aimed to measure the quality of life in long-term care service users in Japan and to clarify the relationship between quality of life and the level of care required. METHODS A questionnaire study was conducted in 106 facilities of 22 corporations. In addition to the EQ-5D and WHO-5, sex, age, and the level of care required were assessed by descriptive statistics. Bonferroni's multiple comparison test was used to analyze each quality of life score, and the differences by sex and age were analyzed multiple regression analyses, with each quality of life score as the objective variable. RESULTS Of 4647 cases collected, 2830 were analyzed, with no missing data. Both indicators tended to be lower than the general older population. Those scores tended to be higher in females than males (EQ-5D: males, 0.58 ± 0.26; females, 0.60 ± 0.24; P = 0.06 and WHO-5: males, 13.8 ± 5.92; females 14.9 ± 5.70; P < 0.001). In terms of age, those under 65 years old with specific diseases had lower EQ-5D scores than those in other age groups (P < 0.001); however, WHO-5 scores did not differ by age. Multiple regression analysis showed a significant association between the EQ-5D score and level of care required, except for support-required level 1, which tended to worsen as the level of care required increased. Conversely, the WHO-5 score was significantly lower for care need levels 2, 4, and 5. CONCLUSIONS The quality of life of long-term care service users was worse than that of the general older population, it tended to be low among males and those under 65 years old with specific diseases. Furthermore, it gradually decreased as the level of care required increased. It is important to monitor users' quality of life as a quality indicator of care, to improve and manage it.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Koji Hara
- grid.258799.80000 0004 0372 2033Department of Healthcare Economics and Quality Management, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Yoshida Konoe-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto City, 606-8501 Japan ,grid.268441.d0000 0001 1033 6139School of Economics and Business Administration, Yokohama City University, 22-2 Seto, Kanazawa, Yokohama, 236-0027 Japan
| | - Takayo Nakabe
- grid.258799.80000 0004 0372 2033Department of Healthcare Economics and Quality Management, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Yoshida Konoe-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto City, 606-8501 Japan ,grid.412708.80000 0004 1764 7572The Database Center of the National University Hospitals, Tokyo Central Hospital North F8, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655 Japan
| | - Masayuki Tanaka
- grid.258799.80000 0004 0372 2033Department of Healthcare Economics and Quality Management, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Yoshida Konoe-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto City, 606-8501 Japan
| | - Yuichi Imanaka
- grid.258799.80000 0004 0372 2033Department of Healthcare Economics and Quality Management, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Yoshida Konoe-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto City, 606-8501 Japan
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Helter TM, Coast J, Łaszewska A, Stamm T, Simon J. Capability instruments in economic evaluations of health-related interventions: a comparative review of the literature. Qual Life Res 2020; 29:1433-1464. [PMID: 31875309 PMCID: PMC7253529 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02393-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Given increasing interest in using the capability approach for health economic evaluations and a growing literature, this paper aims to synthesise current information about the characteristics of capability instruments and their application in health economic evaluations. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted to assess studies that contained information on the development, psychometric properties and valuation of capability instruments, or their application in economic evaluations. RESULTS The review identified 98 studies and 14 instruments for inclusion. There is some evidence on the psychometric properties of most instruments. Most papers found moderate-to-high correlation between health and capability measures, ranging between 0.41 and 0.64. ASCOT, ICECAP-A, -O and -SCM instruments have published valuation sets, most frequently developed using best-worst scaling. Thirteen instruments were originally developed in English and one in Portuguese; however, some translations to other languages are available. Ten economic evaluations using capability instruments were identified. The presentation of results show a lack of consensus regarding the most appropriate way to use capability instruments in economic evaluations with discussion about capability-adjusted life years (CALYs), years of capability equivalence and the trade-off between maximisation of capability versus sufficient capability. CONCLUSION There has been increasing interest in applying the capability-based approach in health economic evaluations, but methodological and conceptual issues remain. There is still a need for direct comparison of the different capability instruments and for clear guidance on when and how they should be used in economic evaluations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timea Mariann Helter
- Department of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
| | - Joanna Coast
- Health Economics Bristol, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, 1-5 Whiteladies Road, Bristol, BS8 1NU, UK
| | - Agata Łaszewska
- Department of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Tanja Stamm
- Section for Outcomes Research, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Judit Simon
- Department of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, OX3 7JX, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Cleland J, Hutchinson C, Khadka J, Milte R, Ratcliffe J. A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Preference-Based Instruments with the Older Population. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2019; 17:781-801. [PMID: 31512086 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00512-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/17/2023]
Abstract
Older people (aged 65 years and over) are the fastest growing age cohort in the majority of developed countries, and the proportion of individuals defined as the oldest old (aged 80 years and over) living with physical frailty and cognitive impairment is rising. These population changes put increasing pressure on health and aged care services, thus it is important to assess the cost effectiveness of interventions targeted for older people across health and aged care sectors to identify interventions with the strongest capacity to enhance older peoples' quality of life and provide value for money. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a form of economic evaluation that typically uses preference-based instruments to measure and value health-related quality of life for the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYS) to enable comparisons of the cost effectiveness of different interventions. A variety of generic preference-based instruments have been used to measure older people's quality of life, including the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT); Health Utility Index Mark 2 (HUI2); Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3); Short-Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D); Assessment of Quality of Life-6 dimensions (AQoL-6D); Assessment of Quality of Life-8 dimensions (AQoL-8D); Quality of Wellbeing Scale-Self-Administered (QWB-SA); 15 Dimensions (15D); EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D); and an older person specific preference-based instrument-the Investigating Choice Experiments Capability Measure for older people (ICECAP-O). This article reviews the development and application of these instruments within the older population and discusses the issues surrounding their use with this population. Areas for further research relating to the development and application of generic preference-based instruments with populations of older people are also highlighted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny Cleland
- Health and Social Care Economics Group, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia
| | - Claire Hutchinson
- Health and Social Care Economics Group, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia
| | - Jyoti Khadka
- Health and Social Care Economics Group, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia
- Healthy Ageing Research Consortium, Registry of Older South Australians (ROSA), South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Rachel Milte
- Health and Social Care Economics Group, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia
| | - Julie Ratcliffe
- Health and Social Care Economics Group, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|