IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v259y2020ics0277953620303282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Well-being of Older People (WOOP): Quantitative validation of a new outcome measure for use in economic evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Hackert, Mariska Q.N.
  • van Exel, Job
  • Brouwer, Werner B.F.

Abstract

There is a need for comprehensive measures to evaluate the benefits of health and social care services for older people. The newly developed Well-being of Older People measure (WOOP) aims to capture all aspects that older people find important to their well-being. This study explores the validity and test-retest reliability of the WOOP. Between December 2017 and January 2018, an online survey was used to retrieve data from 1113 people aged 65 years and older in the Netherlands. Regression analyses on Cantril's Ladder scores were conducted to explore the relative importance of the items of the WOOP. Dimensionality was checked using exploratory factor analysis. Convergent and discriminant validity were investigated by relating the WOOP to several measures of health and well-being. Test-retest reliability was examined using data from 269 respondents that participated in a second online survey, distributed one week after the first. The items of the WOOP were significantly associated with Cantril's Ladder scores. When regressed simultaneously this was still true for all but the ‘social contacts’ item and one level of the ‘acceptance and resilience’ item. The dimensionality analysis revealed three factors, of which two included items of the WOOP and the EQ-5D-5L and the third only items of the WOOP. The WOOP correlated moderately to highly with physical health, and (very) highly with (mental) health and well-being measures. The test-retest reliability in terms of ICC was high, whereas the kappa for the items was fair to good, except for two items. Overall, the WOOP seems to capture aspects relevant to the well-being of older people adequately, and the results of first validity and reliability tests were satisfactory. Before the WOOP can be used in economic evaluations, further validation in a variety of health and social care settings is recommended, and utility weights need to be determined.

Suggested Citation

  • Hackert, Mariska Q.N. & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2020. "Well-being of Older People (WOOP): Quantitative validation of a new outcome measure for use in economic evaluations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:259:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620303282
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620303282
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113109?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 & Keeley, Thomas & Mitchell, Paul & Coast, Joanna, 2013. "Can capabilities be self-reported? A think aloud study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 116-122.
    2. Hackert, Mariska Q.N. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Hoefman, Renske J. & van Exel, Job, 2019. "Views of older people in the Netherlands on wellbeing: A Q-methodology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    3. Jenny Cleland & Claire Hutchinson & Jyoti Khadka & Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe, 2019. "A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Preference-Based Instruments with the Older Population," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 781-801, December.
    4. Amjad,Rashid & Burki,Shahid Javed (ed.), 2015. "Pakistan," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107109520.
    5. Karen M van Leeuwen & Miriam S van Loon & Fenna A van Nes & Judith E Bosmans & Henrica C W de Vet & Johannes C F Ket & Guy A M Widdershoven & Raymond W J G Ostelo, 2019. "What does quality of life mean to older adults? A thematic synthesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-39, March.
    6. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884, Decembrie.
    7. Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N. & Natarajan, Lucy & Sproston, Kerry & Lewis, Jane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J., 2008. "Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 874-882, September.
    8. Hareth Al‐Janabi, 2018. "Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 465-479, 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. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    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. Himmler, Sebastian & Jonker, Marcel & van Krugten, Frédérique & Hackert, Mariska & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner, 2022. "Estimating an anchored utility tariff for the well-being of older people measure (WOOP) for the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    2. Lijing Dong & Zhanhua Jia & Lingyu Zhang & Shaohua Wang, 2022. "Obstacle Factors and Spatial Measurement of the Well-Being of the Elderly in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, February.

    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. Himmler, Sebastian & Jonker, Marcel & van Krugten, Frédérique & Hackert, Mariska & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner, 2022. "Estimating an anchored utility tariff for the well-being of older people measure (WOOP) for the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    2. Hackert, Mariska Q.N. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Hoefman, Renske J. & van Exel, Job, 2019. "Views of older people in the Netherlands on wellbeing: A Q-methodology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    3. Paul Mark Mitchell & Samantha Husbands & Sarah Byford & Philip Kinghorn & Cara Bailey & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2021. "Challenges in developing capability measures for children and young people for use in the economic evaluation of health and care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 1990-2003, September.
    4. Kathryn Hale & Truls Østbye & Bilesha Perera & Robert Bradley & Joanna Maselko, 2019. "A Novel Adaptation of the HOME Inventory for Elders: The Importance of the Home Environment Across the Life Course," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Joanna Coast, 2019. "Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 779-784, August.
    6. Helena Hörder & Susanne Gustafsson & Therese Rydberg & Ingmar Skoog & Margda Waern, 2016. "A Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the ICECAP-O: Test–Retest Reliability and Item Relevance in Swedish 70-Year-Olds," Societies, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-6, September.
    7. Lien Nguyen & Hanna Jokimäki & Ismo Linnosmaa & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & Laurie Batchelder & Juliette Malley & Hui Lu & Peter Burge & Birgit Trukeschitz & Julien Forder, 2022. "Valuing informal carers’ quality of life using best-worst scaling—Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 357-374, April.
    8. Karen M van Leeuwen & Miriam S van Loon & Fenna A van Nes & Judith E Bosmans & Henrica C W de Vet & Johannes C F Ket & Guy A M Widdershoven & Raymond W J G Ostelo, 2019. "What does quality of life mean to older adults? A thematic synthesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-39, March.
    9. Estela González & Carmen Requena & Paula Álvarez-Merino, 2020. "Single Time-Point Study of the Home Environment and Functionality of Older Adults in Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-12, November.
    10. Julie Ratcliffe & Siobhan Bourke & Jinhu Li & Brendan Mulhern & Claire Hutchinson & Jyoti Khadka & Rachel Milte & Emily Lancsar, 2022. "Valuing the Quality-of-Life Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) Instrument for Quality Assessment and Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(11), pages 1069-1079, November.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    14. Hareth Al‐Janabi, 2018. "Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 465-479, March.
    15. Engel, Lidia & Bryan, Stirling & Noonan, Vanessa K. & Whitehurst, David G.T., 2018. "Using path analysis to investigate the relationships between standardized instruments that measure health-related quality of life, capability wellbeing and subjective wellbeing: An application in the ," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 154-164.
    16. 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.
    17. Cassandra Mah & Vanessa K. Noonan & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Empirical Validity of a Generic, Preference-Based Capability Wellbeing Instrument (ICECAP-A) in the Context of Spinal Cord Injury," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 223-240, March.
    18. Sebastian Himmler & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2020. "Estimating the monetary value of health and capability well-being applying the well-being valuation approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1235-1244, November.
    19. Erin M Graybill & Peter McMeekin & John Wildman, 2014. "Can Aging in Place Be Cost Effective? A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-6, July.
    20. Engel, L. & Chudyk, A.M. & Ashe, M.C. & McKay, H.A. & Whitehurst, D.G.T. & Bryan, S., 2016. "Older adults' quality of life – Exploring the role of the built environment and social cohesion in community-dwelling seniors on low income," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-11.

    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:eee:socmed:v:259:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620303282. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.