An analysis of the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM capability wellbeing measure in a palliative care hospice setting

Gareth Myring; Paul Mitchell; W.George Kernohan; Sonja J McIlfatrick; Sarah Cudmore; Anne Finucane; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Alistair Hewison; Louise Jones; Joanne Elizabeth Jordan; Laurie Mc Kibben; Deborah Muldrew; Shazia Zafar; Joanna Coast

doi:10.1186/s12904-022-01012-4

An analysis of the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM capability wellbeing measure in a palliative care hospice setting

Gareth Myring, Paul Mitchell, W.George Kernohan, Sonja J McIlfatrick, Sarah Cudmore, Anne Finucane, Lisa Graham-Wisener, Alistair Hewison, Louise Jones, Joanne Elizabeth Jordan, Laurie Mc Kibben, Deborah Muldrew, Shazia Zafar, Joanna Coast

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

43 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

For outcome measures to be useful in health and care decision-making, they need to have certain psychometric properties. The ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM), a seven attribute measure (1. Choice, 2. Love and affection, 3. Physical suffering, 4. Emotional suffering, 5. Dignity, 6. Being supported, 7. Preparation) developed for use in economic evaluation of end-of-life interventions, has face validity and is feasible to use. This study aimed to assess the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM in hospice inpatient and outpatient settings. A secondary analysis of data collated from two studies, one focusing on palliative care day services and the other on constipation management, undertaken in the same national hospice organisation across three UK hospices, was conducted. Other quality of life and wellbeing outcome measures used were the EQ-5D-5L, McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire - Expanded (MQOL-E), Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and Palliative Outcomes Scale Symptom list (POS-S). The construct validity of the ICECAP-SCM was assessed, following hypotheses generation, by calculating correlations between: (i) its domains and the domains of other outcome measures, (ii) its summary score and the other measures' domains, (iii) its summary score and the summary scores of the other measures. The responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM was assessed using anchor-based methods to understand change over time. Statistical analysis consisted of Spearman and Pearson correlations for construct validity and paired t-tests for the responsiveness analysis. Sixty-eight participants were included in the baseline analysis. Five strong correlations were found with ICECAP-SCM attributes and items on the other measures: four with the Emotional suffering attribute (Anxiety/depression on EQ-5D-5L, Psychological and Burden on MQOL-E and Feeling down, depressed or hopeless on PHQ-2), and one with Physical suffering (Weakness or lack of energy on POS-S). ICECAP-SCM attributes and scores were most strongly associated with the MQOL-E measure (0.73 correlation coefficient between summary scores). The responsiveness analysis (n = 36) showed the ICECAP-SCM score was responsive to change when anchored to changes on the MQOL-E over time (p

Original language	English
Article number	121(2022)
Journal	BMC Palliative Care
Volume	21
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-022-01012-4
Publication status	Published (in print/issue) - 8 Jul 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
We would like to thank participants at the International Health Economics Association (iHEA) 2021 Congress, where an earlier version of this research was presented. The methods used in this study were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines, the COSMIN study design checklist for patient reported outcome measurement instruments, and regulations.

Funding Information:
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding was provided by the Marie Curie Research Grants Scheme [A17114, A20993]. PM and JC were supported by a Wellcome Trust Investigator Award in the analysis and drafting of this manuscript (205284/Z/16/Z).

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).

Funding

Funding Information: We would like to thank participants at the International Health Economics Association (iHEA) 2021 Congress, where an earlier version of this research was presented. The methods used in this study were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines, the COSMIN study design checklist for patient reported outcome measurement instruments, and regulations. Funding Information: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding was provided by the Marie Curie Research Grants Scheme [A17114, A20993]. PM and JC were supported by a Wellcome Trust Investigator Award in the analysis and drafting of this manuscript (205284/Z/16/Z). Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).

Keywords

Palliative care
patient reported outcome measures
economic evaluation
psychometrics
quality of life
hospice care
Patient reported outcome measures
Reproducibility of Results
Humans
Palliative Care
Psychometrics
Hospices
Quality of life
Pain
Economic evaluation
Hospice care
Surveys and Questionnaires
Quality of Life - psychology

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1186/s12904-022-01012-4Licence: CC BY

An analysis of the construct validity_Final VersionFinal published version, 943 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Myring, G., Mitchell, P., Kernohan, W. G., McIlfatrick, S. J., Cudmore, S., Finucane, A., Graham-Wisener, L., Hewison, A., Jones, L., Jordan, J. E., Mc Kibben, L., Muldrew, D., Zafar, S., & Coast, J. (2022). An analysis of the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM capability wellbeing measure in a palliative care hospice setting. BMC Palliative Care, 21, Article 121(2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-022-01012-4

@article{9e5d4e5b6dc3406cbd3dddeed068f17b,

title = "An analysis of the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM capability wellbeing measure in a palliative care hospice setting",

abstract = "For outcome measures to be useful in health and care decision-making, they need to have certain psychometric properties. The ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM), a seven attribute measure (1. Choice, 2. Love and affection, 3. Physical suffering, 4. Emotional suffering, 5. Dignity, 6. Being supported, 7. Preparation) developed for use in economic evaluation of end-of-life interventions, has face validity and is feasible to use. This study aimed to assess the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM in hospice inpatient and outpatient settings. A secondary analysis of data collated from two studies, one focusing on palliative care day services and the other on constipation management, undertaken in the same national hospice organisation across three UK hospices, was conducted. Other quality of life and wellbeing outcome measures used were the EQ-5D-5L, McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire - Expanded (MQOL-E), Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and Palliative Outcomes Scale Symptom list (POS-S). The construct validity of the ICECAP-SCM was assessed, following hypotheses generation, by calculating correlations between: (i) its domains and the domains of other outcome measures, (ii) its summary score and the other measures' domains, (iii) its summary score and the summary scores of the other measures. The responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM was assessed using anchor-based methods to understand change over time. Statistical analysis consisted of Spearman and Pearson correlations for construct validity and paired t-tests for the responsiveness analysis. Sixty-eight participants were included in the baseline analysis. Five strong correlations were found with ICECAP-SCM attributes and items on the other measures: four with the Emotional suffering attribute (Anxiety/depression on EQ-5D-5L, Psychological and Burden on MQOL-E and Feeling down, depressed or hopeless on PHQ-2), and one with Physical suffering (Weakness or lack of energy on POS-S). ICECAP-SCM attributes and scores were most strongly associated with the MQOL-E measure (0.73 correlation coefficient between summary scores). The responsiveness analysis (n = 36) showed the ICECAP-SCM score was responsive to change when anchored to changes on the MQOL-E over time (p",

keywords = "Palliative care, patient reported outcome measures, economic evaluation, psychometrics, quality of life, hospice care, Patient reported outcome measures, Reproducibility of Results, Humans, Palliative Care, Psychometrics, Hospices, Quality of life, Pain, Economic evaluation, Hospice care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Quality of Life - psychology",

author = "Gareth Myring and Paul Mitchell and W.George Kernohan and McIlfatrick, \{Sonja J\} and Sarah Cudmore and Anne Finucane and Lisa Graham-Wisener and Alistair Hewison and Louise Jones and Jordan, \{Joanne Elizabeth\} and \{Mc Kibben\}, Laurie and Deborah Muldrew and Shazia Zafar and Joanna Coast",

note = "Funding Information: We would like to thank participants at the International Health Economics Association (iHEA) 2021 Congress, where an earlier version of this research was presented. The methods used in this study were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines, the COSMIN study design checklist for patient reported outcome measurement instruments, and regulations. Funding Information: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding was provided by the Marie Curie Research Grants Scheme [A17114, A20993]. PM and JC were supported by a Wellcome Trust Investigator Award in the analysis and drafting of this manuscript (205284/Z/16/Z). Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022, The Author(s).",

year = "2022",

month = jul,

day = "8",

doi = "10.1186/s12904-022-01012-4",

language = "English",

volume = "21",

journal = "BMC Palliative Care",

issn = "1472-684X",

publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd.",

}

Myring, G, Mitchell, P, Kernohan, WG , McIlfatrick, SJ, Cudmore, S, Finucane, A, Graham-Wisener, L, Hewison, A, Jones, L, Jordan, JE, Mc Kibben, L, Muldrew, D, Zafar, S & Coast, J 2022, 'An analysis of the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM capability wellbeing measure in a palliative care hospice setting', BMC Palliative Care, vol. 21, 121(2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-022-01012-4

TY - JOUR

T1 - An analysis of the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM capability wellbeing measure in a palliative care hospice setting

AU - Myring, Gareth

AU - Mitchell, Paul

AU - Kernohan, W.George

AU - McIlfatrick, Sonja J

AU - Cudmore, Sarah

AU - Finucane, Anne

AU - Graham-Wisener, Lisa

AU - Hewison, Alistair

AU - Jones, Louise

AU - Jordan, Joanne Elizabeth

AU - Mc Kibben, Laurie

AU - Muldrew, Deborah

AU - Zafar, Shazia

AU - Coast, Joanna

N1 - Funding Information: We would like to thank participants at the International Health Economics Association (iHEA) 2021 Congress, where an earlier version of this research was presented. The methods used in this study were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines, the COSMIN study design checklist for patient reported outcome measurement instruments, and regulations. Funding Information: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding was provided by the Marie Curie Research Grants Scheme [A17114, A20993]. PM and JC were supported by a Wellcome Trust Investigator Award in the analysis and drafting of this manuscript (205284/Z/16/Z). Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).

PY - 2022/7/8

Y1 - 2022/7/8

N2 - For outcome measures to be useful in health and care decision-making, they need to have certain psychometric properties. The ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM), a seven attribute measure (1. Choice, 2. Love and affection, 3. Physical suffering, 4. Emotional suffering, 5. Dignity, 6. Being supported, 7. Preparation) developed for use in economic evaluation of end-of-life interventions, has face validity and is feasible to use. This study aimed to assess the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM in hospice inpatient and outpatient settings. A secondary analysis of data collated from two studies, one focusing on palliative care day services and the other on constipation management, undertaken in the same national hospice organisation across three UK hospices, was conducted. Other quality of life and wellbeing outcome measures used were the EQ-5D-5L, McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire - Expanded (MQOL-E), Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and Palliative Outcomes Scale Symptom list (POS-S). The construct validity of the ICECAP-SCM was assessed, following hypotheses generation, by calculating correlations between: (i) its domains and the domains of other outcome measures, (ii) its summary score and the other measures' domains, (iii) its summary score and the summary scores of the other measures. The responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM was assessed using anchor-based methods to understand change over time. Statistical analysis consisted of Spearman and Pearson correlations for construct validity and paired t-tests for the responsiveness analysis. Sixty-eight participants were included in the baseline analysis. Five strong correlations were found with ICECAP-SCM attributes and items on the other measures: four with the Emotional suffering attribute (Anxiety/depression on EQ-5D-5L, Psychological and Burden on MQOL-E and Feeling down, depressed or hopeless on PHQ-2), and one with Physical suffering (Weakness or lack of energy on POS-S). ICECAP-SCM attributes and scores were most strongly associated with the MQOL-E measure (0.73 correlation coefficient between summary scores). The responsiveness analysis (n = 36) showed the ICECAP-SCM score was responsive to change when anchored to changes on the MQOL-E over time (p

AB - For outcome measures to be useful in health and care decision-making, they need to have certain psychometric properties. The ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM), a seven attribute measure (1. Choice, 2. Love and affection, 3. Physical suffering, 4. Emotional suffering, 5. Dignity, 6. Being supported, 7. Preparation) developed for use in economic evaluation of end-of-life interventions, has face validity and is feasible to use. This study aimed to assess the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM in hospice inpatient and outpatient settings. A secondary analysis of data collated from two studies, one focusing on palliative care day services and the other on constipation management, undertaken in the same national hospice organisation across three UK hospices, was conducted. Other quality of life and wellbeing outcome measures used were the EQ-5D-5L, McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire - Expanded (MQOL-E), Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and Palliative Outcomes Scale Symptom list (POS-S). The construct validity of the ICECAP-SCM was assessed, following hypotheses generation, by calculating correlations between: (i) its domains and the domains of other outcome measures, (ii) its summary score and the other measures' domains, (iii) its summary score and the summary scores of the other measures. The responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM was assessed using anchor-based methods to understand change over time. Statistical analysis consisted of Spearman and Pearson correlations for construct validity and paired t-tests for the responsiveness analysis. Sixty-eight participants were included in the baseline analysis. Five strong correlations were found with ICECAP-SCM attributes and items on the other measures: four with the Emotional suffering attribute (Anxiety/depression on EQ-5D-5L, Psychological and Burden on MQOL-E and Feeling down, depressed or hopeless on PHQ-2), and one with Physical suffering (Weakness or lack of energy on POS-S). ICECAP-SCM attributes and scores were most strongly associated with the MQOL-E measure (0.73 correlation coefficient between summary scores). The responsiveness analysis (n = 36) showed the ICECAP-SCM score was responsive to change when anchored to changes on the MQOL-E over time (p

KW - Palliative care

KW - patient reported outcome measures

KW - economic evaluation

KW - psychometrics

KW - quality of life

KW - hospice care

KW - Patient reported outcome measures

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Humans

KW - Palliative Care

KW - Psychometrics

KW - Hospices

KW - Quality of life

KW - Pain

KW - Economic evaluation

KW - Hospice care

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

KW - Quality of Life - psychology

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85133670016

U2 - 10.1186/s12904-022-01012-4

DO - 10.1186/s12904-022-01012-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 35804325

SN - 1472-684X

VL - 21

JO - BMC Palliative Care

JF - BMC Palliative Care

M1 - 121(2022)

ER -

An analysis of the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM capability wellbeing measure in a palliative care hospice setting

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this