Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31030365›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2019

Measuring broader wellbeing in mental health services: validity of the German language OxCAP-MH capability instrument.

Agata Łaszewska, Markus Schwab, Eva Leutner, Marold Oberrauter, Georg Spiel, Judit Simon

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Population normative data for OxCAP-MH capability scores.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evaluating health-related quality of life and subjective wellbeing among infertility patients: a cross-sectional study in mainland China.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Capability instruments in economic evaluations of health-related interventions: a comparative review of the literature.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Agata ŁaszewskaDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15/1, 1090, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6689-3708
Markus Schwabpro mente Forschung, Villacher Straße 161, 9020, Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Austria.
Eva Leutnerpro mente kärnten GmbH, Villacher Straße 161, 9020, Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Austria.
Marold Oberrauterpro mente kärnten GmbH, Villacher Straße 161, 9020, Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Austria.
Georg Spielpro mente Forschung, Villacher Straße 161, 9020, Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Austria.
Judit SimonDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15/1, 1090, Vienna, Austria. judit.simon@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9279-8627

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe OxCAP-MH capabilities questionnaire was developed and validated in the UK for outcome measurement in mental health clinical studies. Its broader wellbeing construct or validity in routine mental health services so far has not been assessed. The objectives were to investigate the extent the OxCAP-MH measures broader wellbeing compared to the EQ-5D-5L and to test psychometric properties of the German language OxCAP-MH in routine mental health services in Austria.

methodsStudy sample consisted of patients in socio-psychiatric services (n = 159) assessed at baseline and 6-month follow-up. Underlying factors associated with quality-of-life/wellbeing concepts measured by the OxCAP-MH and EQ-5D-5L were identified in exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Responsiveness was assessed using anchor questionnaires and standardised response mean (SRM). For discriminant validity, subgroups of respondents were compared using t test and one-way ANOVA. Test-retest analysis was assessed for a period of maximum 30 days from the baseline assessment with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).

resultsEFA identified a two-factor structure. All EQ-5D-5L items and seven OxCAP-MH items loaded on one factor and nine remaining OxCAP-MH items loaded on a separate factor. Responsiveness was found for patients who improved in anchor questionnaire scores with large or moderate SRM statistics. OxCAP-MH discriminated between various groups in univariable and multivariable analyses. Reliability of the German language OxCAP-MH was confirmed by ICC of 0.80.

conclusionsBesides providing evidence that the OxCAP-MH measures broader wellbeing constructs beyond traditional health-related quality of life, the study also confirms the validity of the instrument for implementation in routine evaluation of mental health services.

Indexed as

LanguageTranslationsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustriaFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePsychometricsCapabilitiesMental healthPROMPsychometric validationQuality of lifeWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID31030365
PMCPMC6620251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.