Trial reportHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Assessing measurement properties of EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A in patients with chronic depression in England.
Trial report in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEQ-5D and ICECAP-A instruments are widely used as outcome measures in economic evaluation. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A for economic evaluation in patients with chronic depression in England. METHODOLOGY: Data from 365 patients with chronic depression who took part in a cluster randomised controlled trial were used. The EQ-5D-5L, ICECAP-A and four additional outcome measures (MANSA, BDI-II, MADRS and CGI-S) were administrated at baseline and 12-months post-randomisation. We assessed the floor/ceiling effect, structural validity, convergent validity, known-group validity, and responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A in this population.
resultsExploratory factor analysis with pooled EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A items suggested a two-factor solution (i.e. psychosocial wellbeing and physical functioning factors). The EQ-5D-5L index and ICECAP-A index were positively correlated with each other (ρ = 0.578, p < 0.001). The two measures correlated the strongest with the BDI-II, and the weakest with CGI-S. Both EQ-5D-5L index and ICECAP-A index showed good discriminative ability. Mental health condition specific measures (BDI-II, MADRS and CGI-S) and a subjective quality of life measure (MANSA) reported better responsiveness than EQ-5D-5L index and ICECAP-A index. The ICECAP-A index reported better responsiveness than the EQ-5D-5L index. The responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L was largely driven by the anxiety/depression dimension, followed by the usual activities dimension. For the ICECAP-A, four attributes of the instrument reported good responsiveness except for the autonomy attribute.
conclusionsEQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A showed good validity and responsiveness among patients with chronic depression in England. We recommend ICECAP-A as an outcome measure in economic evaluation for medical interventions that aim to improve the psychosocial wellbeing of adults with chronic depression for the instrument’s structural validity and its better responsiveness than the EQ-5D-5L.
trial registrationThe trial was registered on 13/06/2019. The registration number is ISRCTN11301686.
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.