Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33475868›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2021

German tariffs for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluations at the end of life.

Judith Dams, Elisabeth Huynh, Steffi Riedel-Heller, Margrit Löbner, Christian Brettschneider, Hans-Helmut König

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Psychometric properties of the ICECAP-SCM capability-wellbeing measure in specialist palliative care units in Austria.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
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.

Judith DamsDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. j.dams@uke.de.
Elisabeth HuynhDepartment of Health Service Research and Policy, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Steffi Riedel-HellerInstitute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Margrit LöbnerInstitute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Christian BrettschneiderDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Hans-Helmut KönigDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GL1725B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEconomic evaluations often use preference-based value sets (tariffs) for health-related quality of life to quantify health effects. For wellbeing at the end of life, issues beyond health-related quality of life may be important. Therefore, the ICECAP Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM), based on the capability approach, was developed. A validated German ICECAP-SCM version was published recently. However, tariffs for the German ICECAP-SCM are not available. Therefore, the aim was to determine tariffs for the ICECAP-SCM based on preferences of the German general population.

methodsAn online sample of 2996 participants completed a best-worst scaling (BWS) and a discrete choice experiment (DCE). BWSs required participants to choose the best and worst statement within the same capability state, whereas DCEs required participants to trade-off between two capability states. First, BWS and DCE data were analyzed separately. Subsequently, combined data were analyzed using scale-adjusted conditional logit latent class models. Models were selected based on the stability of solutions and the Bayesian information criterion.

resultsThe two latent class model was identified to be optimal for the BWS, DCE, and combined data, and was used to derive tariffs for the ICECAP-SCM capability states. BWS data captured differences in ICECAP-SCM scale levels, whereas DCE data additionally explained interactions between the seven ICECAP-SCM attributes. DISCUSSION: The German ICECAP-SCM tariffs can be used in addition to health-related quality of life to quantify effectiveness in economic evaluations. The tariffs based on BWS data were similar for Germany and the UK, whereas the tariffs based on combined data varied. We would recommend to use tariffs based on combined data in German evaluations. However, only results on BWS data are comparable between Germany and the UK, so that tariffs based on BWS data should be used when comparing results between Germany and the UK.

Indexed as

DeathQuality of LifeAdultBayes TheoremCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGermanyHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesBest–worst scalingCapabilityDiscrete choice experimentEnd-of-lifeICECAP-SCMValue set

Identifiers

PMID33475868
PMCPMC7954731

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.