ArticlePsychology research and behavior management2025
Scoring System for the Japanese Version of the ICECAP-A.
Article in Psychology research and behavior management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to develop a value set for the Japanese version of the Investigating Choice Experiments CAPability Measure for Adults (ICECAP-A). Patients and Methods: A total of 400 participants were recruited. Survey 1, conducted utilizing a self-report format, collected demographic data and responses to well-being scales, including the ICECAP-A, the Investigating Choice Experiments CAPability Measure for Older People (ICECAP-O), and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), among others. Participants who completed Survey 1 were invited to participate in Survey 2. In Survey 2, an interview-based assessment, participants engaged in best-worst scaling, where they identified the most and least favorable situations in each of the 16 hypothetical scenarios. A mixed-mixed multinomial logit (MM-MNL) model was utilized to estimate preference parameters, accounting for individual heterogeneity and latent classes. Results: The estimated parameters and tariffs indicated that all five attributes contributed to an individual's capability for well-being, consistent with prior studies. The attributes were ranked in order of importance as follows: "enjoyment" (24.8% of the space), "attachment" (22.1%), "stability" (19.5%), "autonomy" (17.9%), and "achievement" (15.6%). For "enjoyment" and "attachment", the differences between levels 1 and 2 and between levels 2 and 3 were equally large. In contrast, for all other attributes, the greatest differences were observed between levels 1 and 2. Across all attributes, the differences between levels 3 and 4 were comparatively smaller. Conclusion: We developed a Japanese version of the ICECAP-A and demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing best-worst scaling in a non-European context. This approach allows for a more precise evaluation of quality of life (QoL) among individuals with chronic conditions, caregivers, and the general population. Future research should assess the scale's sensitivity in capturing changes in capability over time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.