Ilias Goranitis1, Joanna Coast2, Ed Day3, Alex Copello4, Nick Freemantle5, Jennifer Seddon6, Carmel Bennett6, Emma Frew7. 1. Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 2. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 3. Research and Innovation Department, Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; Addictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. 4. Research and Innovation Department, Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 5. Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK. 6. Research and Innovation Department, Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. 7. Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: E.Frew@bham.ac.uk.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Ilias Goranitis; Leana Bellanca; Amanda J Daley; Adele Thomas; Helen Stokes-Lampard; Andrea K Roalfe; Sue Jowett Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jasmine Peak; Ilias Goranitis; Ed Day; Alex Copello; Nick Freemantle; Emma Frew Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Dan Lewer; Robert W Aldridge; Dee Menezes; Clare Sawyer; Paola Zaninotto; Martin Dedicoat; Imtiaz Ahmed; Serena Luchenski; Andrew Hayward; Alistair Story Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Agata Łaszewska; Markus Schwab; Eva Leutner; Marold Oberrauter; Georg Spiel; Judit Simon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-04-27 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ed Day; Alex Copello; Jennifer L Seddon; Marilyn Christie; Deborah Bamber; Charlotte Powell; Carmel Bennett; Shabana Akhtar; Sanju George; Andrew Ball; Emma Frew; Ilias Goranitis; Nick Freemantle Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 3.630