Erasmus School of Health Policy Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.
Med Decis Making. 2020 May;40(4):498-510. doi: 10.1177/0272989X20923015. Epub 2020 May 26.
The ICECAP-O and the ICECAP-A are validated capability well-being instruments. To be used in economic evaluations, multidimensional instruments require weighting of the distinguished well-being states. These weights are usually obtained through ex ante preference elicitation (i.e., decision utility) but could also be based on experienced utility. This article describes the development of value sets for ICECAP-O and ICECAP-A based on experienced utility and compares them with current decision utility weights. Data from 2 cross-sectional samples corresponding to the target groups of ICECAP-O and ICECAP-A were used in 2 separate analyses. The utility impacts of ICECAP-O and ICECAP-A levels were assessed through regression models using a composite measure of subjective well-being as a proxy for experienced utility. The observed utility impacts were rescaled to match the 0 to 1 range of the existing value set. The calculated experienced utility values were similar to the decision utility weights for some of the ICECAP dimensions but deviated for others. The largest differences were found for weights of the ICECAP-O dimension enjoyment and the ICECAP-A dimensions attachment and autonomy. The results suggest a different weighting of ICECAP-O and ICECAP-A levels if experienced utility is used instead of decision utility.
ICECAP-O 和 ICECAP-A 是经过验证的能力福祉量表。为了在经济评估中使用，多维量表需要对不同的福祉状态进行加权。这些权重通常通过事前偏好 elicitation（即决策效用）获得，但也可以基于经验效用。本文描述了基于经验效用的 ICECAP-O 和 ICECAP-A 价值集的开发，并将其与当前的决策效用权重进行了比较。使用来自 ICECAP-O 和 ICECAP-A 目标群体的 2 个横截面样本的数据进行了 2 项独立分析。通过使用主观幸福感的综合衡量标准作为经验效用的替代指标的回归模型，评估了 ICECAP-O 和 ICECAP-A 水平的效用影响。观察到的效用影响被重新调整，以匹配现有价值集的 0 到 1 范围。计算得出的经验效用值与一些 ICECAP 维度的决策效用权重相似，但对于其他维度则存在差异。ICECAP-O 维度的享受和 ICECAP-A 维度的依恋和自主的权重差异最大。结果表明，如果使用经验效用而不是决策效用，那么 ICECAP-O 和 ICECAP-A 水平的权重可能会有所不同。
