IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v189y2017icp114-128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life

Author

Listed:
  • Huynh, Elisabeth
  • Coast, Joanna
  • Rose, John
  • Kinghorn, Philip
  • Flynn, Terry

Abstract

End of life care may have elements of value that go beyond health. A generic measure of the benefits of end of life care could be helpful to decision makers. Such a measure, based on the capability approach, has recently been developed: the ICECAP Supportive Care Measure. This paper reports the first valuation exercise for that measure, with data from 6020 individuals collected from an on-line general population panel during June 2013. Individuals were asked to complete a stated choice experiment that combined best-worst scaling and a standard discrete choice experiment. Analysis of the best-worst data used limited dependent variable models within the random utility framework including the multinomial logit models and latent class choice model analysis. Exploratory steps were taken to determine the similarity of the best-worst and DCE data before formal testing and pooling of the two data sources. Combined data were analysed in a heteroscedastic conditional logit model adjusting for continuous scale. Two sets of tariffs were generated, one from the best-worst data capturing only main effects, and a second from the pooled data allowing for two-way interactions. Either tariff could be used in economic evaluation of interventions at the end of life, although there are advantages and disadvantages with each. This extensive valuation exercise for the ICECAP Supportive Care Measure, with a large number of members of the general public, could be complemented in the future with best-worst scaling studies amongst those experiencing the end of life.

Suggested Citation

  • Huynh, Elisabeth & Coast, Joanna & Rose, John & Kinghorn, Philip & Flynn, Terry, 2017. "Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 114-128.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:189:y:2017:i:c:p:114-128
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.07.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617304458
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.07.012?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. 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.
    2. Flynn, Terry Nicholas & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1957-1965, June.
    3. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    4. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. 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.
    7. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    8. Joanna Coast & Elisabeth Huynh & Philip Kinghorn & Terry Flynn, 2016. "Complex Valuation: Applying Ideas from the Complex Intervention Framework to Valuation of a New Measure for End-of-Life Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 499-508, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    11. Lorgelly, Paula K. & Lorimer, Karen & Fenwick, Elisabeth A.L. & Briggs, Andrew H. & Anand, Paul, 2015. "Operationalising the capability approach as an outcome measure in public health: The development of the OCAP-18," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 68-81.
    12. 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.
    13. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Bilger, Marcel & Flynn, Terry N. & Malhotra, Chetna, 2015. "Preferences for end-of-life care among community-dwelling older adults and patients with advanced cancer: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(11), pages 1482-1489.
    14. Martha Nussbaum, 2003. "Capabilities As Fundamental Entitlements: Sen And Social Justice," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2-3), pages 33-59.
    15. Swait, Joffre & Bernardino, Adriana, 2000. "Distinguishing taste variation from error structure in discrete choice data," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-15, January.
    16. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    17. Terry Flynn & Marcel Bilger & Chetna Malhotra & Eric Finkelstein, 2016. "Are Efficient Designs Used in Discrete Choice Experiments Too Difficult for Some Respondents? A Case Study Eliciting Preferences for End-of-Life Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 273-284, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Terry N. Flynn & Marcel Bilger & Chetna Malhotra & Eric A. Finkelstein, 2016. "Are Efficient Designs Used in Discrete Choice Experiments Too Difficult for Some Respondents? A Case Study Eliciting Preferences for End-of-Life Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 273-284, March.
    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. Milte, Rachel & Huynh, Elisabeth & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2019. "Assessing quality of care in nursing homes using discrete choice experiments: How does the level of cognitive functioning impact upon older people's preferences?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Judith Dams & Elisabeth Huynh & Steffi Riedel-Heller & Margrit Löbner & Christian Brettschneider & Hans-Helmut König, 2021. "German tariffs for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluations at the end of life," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(3), pages 365-380, April.
    3. Joanna Coast & Cara Bailey & Alastair Canaway & Philip Kinghorn, 2021. "“It is not a scientific number it is just a feeling”: Populating a multi‐dimensional end‐of‐life decision framework using deliberative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1033-1049, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    6. 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.
    7. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney, 2019. "One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 29-43, January.
    8. Hajji, Assma & Trukeschitz, Birgit & Malley, Juliette & Batchelder, Laurie & Saloniki, Eirini & Linnosmaa, Ismo & Lu, Hui, 2020. "Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users for Austria: Findings from a best-worst experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    9. Jeff Round, 2018. "Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 641-643, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    12. Joanna Coast & Cara Bailey & Rosanna Orlando & Kathy Armour & Rachel Perry & Louise Jones & Philip Kinghorn, 2018. "Adaptation, Acceptance and Adaptive Preferences in Health and Capability Well-Being Measurement Amongst Those Approaching End of Life," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(5), pages 539-546, October.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. 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.
    6. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    7. 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.
    8. Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien & Frouke Hermens, 2018. "The eyes have it: Using eye tracking to inform information processing strategies in multi‐attributes choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 709-721, April.
    9. Enrica Chiappero‐Martinetti & Paola Salardi & Francesco Scervini, 2019. "Estimating conversion rates: A new empirical strategy with an application to health care in Italy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 748-764, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Marco Ricardo Téllez Cabrera, 2018. "Giving arguments to operationalize health capabilities in economic evaluations of health interventions," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 20(2), pages 240-255, October.
    12. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    13. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    14. Ryan, Mandy & Kinghorn, Philip & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Francis, Jill J., 2014. "Valuing patients' experiences of healthcare processes: Towards broader applications of existing methods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 194-203.
    15. N. Flynn, Terry & J. Peters, Tim & Coast, Joanna, 2013. "Quantifying response shift or adaptation effects in quality of life by synthesising best-worst scaling and discrete choice data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 34-43.
    16. Giulia Greco & Paula Lorgelly & Inthira Yamabhai, 2016. "Outcomes in Economic Evaluations of Public Health Interventions in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: Health, Capabilities and Subjective Wellbeing," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 83-94, February.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Jiang, Shan & Gu, Yuanyuan & Yang, Fan & Wu, Tao & Wang, Hui & Cutler, Henry & Zhang, Lufa, 2020. "Tertiary hospitals or community clinics? An enquiry into the factors affecting patients' choice for healthcare facilities in urban China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    20. Hajji, Assma & Trukeschitz, Birgit & Malley, Juliette & Batchelder, Laurie & Saloniki, Eirini & Linnosmaa, Ismo & Lu, Hui, 2020. "Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users for Austria: Findings from a best-worst experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(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:eee:socmed:v:189:y:2017:i:c:p:114-128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.