Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A

Purpose The benefits of health and social care are not confined to patient health alone and therefore broader measures of wellbeing may be useful for economic evaluation.\ud This paper reports the development of a simple measure of capability wellbeing for adults (ICECAP-A).\ud Methods In-depth, informant-led, interviews to identify the attributes of capability wellbeing were conducted with 36 adults in the UK. Eighteen semi-structured, repeat interviews were carried out to develop a capability-based descriptive system for the measure. Informants were purposively selected to ensure variation in socio-economic status, age, sex, ethnicity and health. Data analysis was carried out inductively and iteratively alongside interviews, and findings were used to shape the questions in later interviews.\ud Results Five over-arching attributes of capability wellbeing were identified for the measure: ‘‘stability’’,‘‘attachment’’, ‘‘achievement’’, ‘‘autonomy’’ and ‘‘enjoyment’’. One item, with four response categories, was developed for each attribute for the ICECAP-A descriptive system.\ud Conclusions The ICECAP-A capability measure represents a departure from traditional health economics outcome measures, by treating health status as an influence over broader attributes of capability wellbeing. Further work is required to value and validate the attributes and test the sensitivity of the ICECAP-A to healthcare interventions

What proportion of adult allergy referrals to secondary care could be dealt with in primary care by a GP with special interest?

Background: The concept of a General Practitioner with Special Interest (GPwSI) was first proposed in the 2000 National Health Service Plan, as a way of providing specialised treatment closer to the patient’s home and reducing hospital waiting times. Given the patchy and inadequate provision of allergy services in the UK the introduction of GPwSIs might reduce the pressure on existing specialist services. Objectives: This study assessed what proportion of referrals to a specialist allergy clinic could be managed in a GPwSI allergy service with a predefined range of facilities and expertise (accurate diagnosis and management of allergy; skin prick testing; provision of advice on allergen avoidance; ability to assess suitability for desensitisation). Methods: 100 consecutive GP referrals to a hospital allergy clinic were reviewed to determine whether patients could be seen in a community-based clinic led by a general practitioner with special interest (GPwSI) allergy. The documentation relating to each referral was independently assessed by three allergy specialists. The referrals were judged initially on the referral letter alone and then re-assessed with the benefit of information summarised in the clinic letter, to determine whether appropriate triage decisions could be made prospectively. The proportion of referrals suitable for a GPwSI was calculated and their referral characteristics identified. Results: 29 % referrals were judged unanimously appropriate for management by a GPwSI and an additional 30 % by 2 of the 3 reviewers. 18 % referrals were unsuitable for a GPwSI service because of the complexity of the presenting problem, patient co-morbidity or the need for specialist knowledge or facilities. Conclusions and clinical relevance: At least a quarter, and possibly half, of allergy referrals to our hospital-based service could be dealt with in a GPwSI clinic, thereby diversifying the patient pathway, allowing specialist services to focus on more complex cases and reducing the waiting time for first appointments

Efficacy and safety of ixekizumab through 52 weeks in two phase 3, randomised, controlled clinical trials in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (COAST-V and COAST-W).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab for up to 52 weeks in two phase 3 studies of patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) who were biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-naive (COAST-V) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced (COAST-W). METHODS: Adults with active r-axSpA were randomised 1:1:1:1 (n=341) to 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 (IXE Q2W) or 4 weeks (IXE Q4W), placebo (PBO) or 40 mg adalimumab Q2W (ADA) in COAST-V and 1:1:1 (n=316) to IXE Q2W, IXE Q4W or PBO in COAST-W. At week 16, patients receiving ixekizumab continued their assigned treatment; patients receiving PBO or ADA were rerandomised 1:1 to IXE Q2W or IXE Q4W (PBO/IXE, ADA/IXE) through week 52. RESULTS: In COAST-V, Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 (ASAS40) responses rates (intent-to-treat population, non-responder imputation) at weeks 16 and 52 were 48% and 53% (IXE Q4W); 52% and 51% (IXE Q2W); 36% and 51% (ADA/IXE); 19% and 47% (PBO/IXE). Corresponding ASAS40 response rates in COAST-W were 25% and 34% (IXE Q4W); 31% and 31% (IXE Q2W); 14% and 39% (PBO/IXE). Both ixekizumab regimens sustained improvements in disease activity, physical function, objective markers of inflammation, QoL, health status and overall function up to 52 weeks. Safety through 52 weeks of ixekizumab was consistent with safety through 16 weeks. CONCLUSION: The significant efficacy demonstrated with ixekizumab at week 16 was sustained for up to 52 weeks in bDMARD-naive and TNFi-experienced patients. bDMARD-naive patients initially treated with ADA demonstrated further numerical improvements after switching to ixekizumab. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of ixekizumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02696785/NCT02696798

Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using Best-Worst Scaling: Comparison of various methods of analysis

Background: Additional insights into patient preferences can be gained by supplementing discrete choice experiments with best-worst choice tasks. However, there are no empirical studies illustrating the relative advantages of the various methods of analysis within a random utility framework. Methods: Multinomial and weighted least squares regression models were estimated for a discrete choice experiment. The discrete choice experiment incorporated a best-worst study and was conducted in a UK NHS dermatology context. Waiting time, expertise of doctor, convenience of attending and perceived thoroughness of care were varied across 16 hypothetical appointments. Sample level preferences were estimated for all models and differences between patient subgroups were investigated using ovariateadjusted multinomial logistic regression. Results: A high level of agreement was observed between results from the paired model (which is theoretically consistent with the 'maxdiff' choice model) and the marginal model (which is only an approximation to it). Adjusting for covariates showed that patients who felt particularly affected by their skin condition during the previous week displayed extreme preference for short/no waiting time and were less concerned about other aspects of the appointment. Higher levels of educational attainment were associated with larger differences in utility between the levels of all attributes, although the attributes per use had the same impact upon choices as those with lower levels of attainment. The study also demonstrated the high levels of agreement between summary analyses using weighted least squares and estimates from multinomial models. Conclusion: Robust policy-relevant information on preferences can be obtained from discrete choice experiments incorporating best-worst questions with relatively small sample sizes. The separation of the effects due to attribute impact from the position of levels on the latent utility scale is not possible using traditional discrete choice experiments. This separation is important because health policies to change the levels of attributes in health care may be very different from those aiming to change the attribute impact per se. The good approximation of summary analyses to the multinomial model is a useful finding, because weighted least squares choice totals give better insights into the choice model and promote greater familiarity with the preference data

Measuring Health and Broader Well-Being Benefits in the Context of Opiate Dependence: The Psychometric Performance of the ICECAP-A and the EQ-5D-5L

BACKGROUND: Measuring outcomes in economic evaluations of social care interventions is challenging because both health and well-being benefits are evident. The ICEpop CAPability instrument for adults (ICECAP-A) and the five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) are measures potentially suitable for the economic evaluation of treatments for substance use disorders. Evidence for their validity in this context is, however, lacking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the construct validity of the ICECAP-A and the EQ-5D-5L in terms of convergent and discriminative validity and sensitivity to change on the basis of standard clinical measures (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure, Treatment Outcomes Profile, Interpersonal Support Evaluation List, Leeds Dependence Questionnaire, and Social Satisfaction Questionnaire). METHODS: A secondary analysis of pilot trial data for heroin users in opiate substitution treatment was conducted. Baseline convergence with clinical measures was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Discriminative validity was assessed using one-way analysis of variance and stepwise regressions. Sensitivity to changes in clinical indicators was assessed at 3 and 12 months using the standardized response mean statistic and parametric and nonparametric testing. RESULTS: Both measures had the same level of construct validity, except for clinical indicators of well-being, for which the ICECAP-A performed better. The ICECAP-A was sensitive to changes in both health and well-being indicators. The EQ-5D-5L had lower levels of sensitivity to change, and a ceiling effect (27%), particularly evident in the dimensions of self-care (89%), mobility (75%), and usual activities (72%). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the construct validity of both measures, but the ICECAP-A gives more attention to broader impacts and is more sensitive to change. The ICECAP-A shows promise in evaluating treatments for substance use disorders for which recovery is the desired outcome

An investigation of the construct validity of the ICECAP-A capability measure

Abstract Purpose To investigate the construct validity of the ICECAP-A capability wellbeing measure. Methods A face-to-face interview-administered survey was conducted with 418 members of the UK general population, randomly sampled from the Postcode Address File. Pre-specified hypotheses were developed about the expected associations between individuals’ ICECAP-A responses and their socio-economic circumstances, health and freedom. The hypotheses were investigated using statistical tests of association. Results The ICECAP-A responses and scores reflected differences across different health and socioeconomic groups as anticipated, but did not distinguish individuals by the level of local deprivation. Mean ICECAP-A scores reflected individuals’ perceived freedom slightly more closely than did measures of health and happiness. Conclusion This study suggests that the ICECAP-A measure can identify expected differences in capability wellbeing in a general population sample. Further work could establish whether self-reported capabilities exhibit desirable validity and acceptability in sub-groups of the population such as patients, social care recipients and informal carers

Exploring what lies behind public preferences for avoiding health losses caused by lapses in healthcare safety and patient lifestyle choices

© 2013 Singh et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Background: Although many studies have identified public preferences for prioritising health care interventions based on characteristics of recipient or care, very few of them have examined the reasons for the stated preferences. We conducted an on-line person trade-off (PTO) study (N=1030) to investigate whether the public attach a premium to the avoidance of ill health associated with alternative types of responsibilities: lapses in healthcare safety, those caused by individual action or lifestyle choice; or genetic conditions. We found that the public gave higher priority to prevention of harm in a hospital setting such as preventing hospital associated infections than genetic disorder but drug administration errors were valued similar to genetic disorders. Prevention of staff injuries, lifestyle diseases and sports injuries, were given lower priority. In this paper we aim to understand the reasoning behind the responses by analysing comments provided by respondents to the PTO questions. Method: A majority of the respondents who participated in the survey provided brief comments explaining preferences in free text responses following PTO questions. This qualitative data was transformed into explicit codes conveying similar meanings. An overall coding framework was developed and a reliability test was carried out. Recurrent patterns were identified in each preference group. Comments which challenged the assumptions of hypothetical scenarios were also investigated. Results: NHS causation of illness and a duty of care were the most cited reasons to prioritise lapses in healthcare safety. Personal responsibility dominated responses for lifestyle related contexts, and many respondents mentioned that health loss was the result of the individual’s choice to engage in risky behaviour. A small proportion of responses questioned the assumptions underlying the PTO questions. However excluding these from the main analysis did not affect the conclusions. Conclusion: Although some responses indicated misunderstanding or rejection of assumptions we put forward, the results were still robust. The reasons put forward for responses differed between comparisons but responsibility was the most frequently cited. Most preference elicitation studies only focus on eliciting numerical valuations but allowing for qualitative data can augment understanding of preferences as well as verifying results.EPSRC through the MATCH programme(EP/F063822/1 and EP/G012393/1) and HERG within Brunel University