Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, Australia.
Institute for Applied Health Research, School of Health & Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK.
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Oct;142:68-81. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.002. Epub 2015 Aug 6.
There is growing interest in operationalising the capability approach to measure quality of life. This paper reports the results of a research project undertaken in 2007 that sought to reduce and refine a longer survey in order to provide a summary measure of wellbeing and capability in the realm of public health. The reduction and refinement of the questionnaire took place across a number of stages, using both qualitative (five focus group discussions and 17 in-depth interviews) and quantitative (secondary data analysis, N = 1048 and primary data collection using postal surveys and interviews, N = 45) approaches. The questionnaire was reduced from its original 60+ questions to 24 questions (including demographic questions). Each of Nussbaum's ten Central Human Capabilities are measured using one (or more) of the 18 specific capability items which are included in the questionnaire (referred to as the OCAP-18). Analysis of the questionnaire responses (N = 198) found that respondents differed with respect to the levels of capabilities they reported, and that these capabilities appear to be sensitive to one's gender, age, income and deprivation decile. An index of capability, estimated by assuming equal weight for each capability question, found that the average level of capability amongst respondents was 12.44 (range 3-17.75). This index was found to be highly correlated with a measure of health (EQ-5D) and wellbeing (global QoL), although some differences were apparent. This project operationalised the capability approach to produce an instrument to measure the effectiveness (and cost effectiveness) of public health interventions; the resulting OCAP-18 appears to be responsive and measure something supplementary to health and wellbeing, thus offers a promising addition to the current suite of outcome measures that are available.
人们对运用能力方法来衡量生活质量越来越感兴趣。本文报告了 2007 年开展的一个研究项目的结果,该项目旨在精简和精炼一份更长的调查,以便为公共卫生领域的幸福感和能力提供一个综合衡量标准。问卷的精简和精炼经历了多个阶段,既使用了定性方法(五次焦点小组讨论和 17 次深入访谈),也使用了定量方法(二次数据分析,N=1048 和使用邮政调查和访谈进行的初级数据收集,N=45)。问卷从最初的 60 多个问题减少到 24 个问题(包括人口统计问题)。努斯鲍姆的十大人的基本能力中的每一项都通过问卷中的 18 项具体能力项目中的一项(或多项)来衡量(称为 OCAP-18)。对问卷回答的分析(N=198)发现,受访者在报告的能力水平方面存在差异,而且这些能力似乎对性别、年龄、收入和贫困十分位敏感。通过假设每个能力问题的权重相等,对能力指数进行估计,发现受访者的平均能力水平为 12.44(范围 3-17.75)。该指数与健康(EQ-5D)和幸福感(全球 QoL)的衡量标准高度相关,尽管存在一些差异。该项目运用能力方法来制作一种衡量公共卫生干预措施有效性(和成本效益)的工具;由此产生的 OCAP-18 似乎具有响应性,并衡量了健康和幸福感之外的其他方面,因此为当前可用的一系列结果衡量标准提供了有希望的补充。