Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35804325›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2022

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

Gareth Myring, Paul Mark Mitchell, W George Kernohan, Sonja McIlfatrick, Sarah Cudmore, Anne M Finucane, Lisa Graham-Wisener, Alistair Hewison, Louise Jones, Joanne Jordan and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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
  6. Article
  7. TheContemporary clinical trials communications · 2024
    Article
  8. 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

14 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Gareth MyringHealth Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Paul Mark MitchellHealth Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. paul.mitchell@bristol.ac.uk.
W George KernohanInstitute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, UK.
Sonja McIlfatrickInstitute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, UK.
Sarah CudmoreDivision of Nursing, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK.
Anne M FinucaneClinical Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lisa Graham-WisenerSchool of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Alistair HewisonSchool of Nursing, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Louise JonesMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, London, UK.
Joanne JordanSchool of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
Laurie McKibbenInstitute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, UK.
Deborah H L MuldrewInstitute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, UK.
Shazia ZafarSchool of Nursing, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Joanna CoastHealth Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Ulster · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBMarie Curie Hospice · GBQueen Margaret University · GBQueen's University Belfast · GBThe Open University · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Marie Curie A17114Marie Curie A20993Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-UWellcome Trust 205284/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 205384/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsSixty-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 < 0.05).

conclusionsThis study provides initial evidence of construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM in hospice settings and suggests its potential for use in end-of-life care research.

Indexed as

HospicesQuality of LifeHumansPainPalliative CarePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesEconomic evaluationHospice carePalliative carePatient reported outcome measuresPsychometricsQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID35804325
PMCPMC9264696
OpenAlexW3210985194

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.