Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Economic evaluation of services and interventions in care services tends to focus on quality of life(QoL) based on health-related measures such as EQ5D, with a major focus on health and functioning. The Capability Approach (CA) provides an alternative framework for measuring QoL and challenges some of the conventional issues in the current practice of measurement of QoL. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) aims to measure social care-related QoL in a broad sense. This article investigates whether and, if so, how the ASCOT addresses issues put on the agenda by the CA.
Literature analysis concerning theoretical assumptions and arguments of CA and ASCOT.
The Capability Approach (CA) puts three issues on the agenda regarding QoL. First, the focus of evaluation should not be on functioning, but on freedom of choice. Second, evaluation should be critical about adaptive preferences, which entail that people lower expectations in situations of limited possibilities. Third, evaluation should not only address health, but also other domains of life. Our analysis shows that freedom of choice is reflected in the response option ‘as I want’ in the ASCOT questionnaire. The problem of adaptive preferences is countered in the ASCOT by developing a standard based on preferences of the general population. Third, the ASCOT contains several domains of life.
We conclude that the CA and the ASCOT contribute to the discussion on QoL, and that the ASCOT operationalizes core assumptions of the CA, translating the issues raised by the CA in a practical way.
Van den Berg, M., Heijink, R., Zwakhals, L., Verkleij, H., & Westert, G. (2014). Health care performance in the Netherlands: Easy access, varying quality, rising costs. European Union Law and Health, 16(4), 27–30.
Coast, J., Smith, R. D., & Lorgelly, P. (2008). Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: The spread of ideas in health economics. Social Science & Medicine, 67(7), 1190–1198. CrossRef
Birch, S., & Donaldson, C. (2003). Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: Where’s the ‘extra’in extra-welfarism? Social Science & Medicine, 56(5), 1121–1133. CrossRef
Mile, C., Walker, R., Luszc, M., Lancsar, E., Kaambwa, B., & Ratcliffe, J. (2014). How important is health status in defining quality of life for older people? An exploratory study of the vies of older South Australians. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 12(1), 73–84. CrossRef
Secton, E., Bennett, K., Fahet, T., & Cahir, C. (2017). Does the EQ-5D capture the effects of physical and mental health status on life satisfaction among older people? A path analysis approach. Quality of Life Research, 26, 1177–1186. CrossRef
Makai, P., Brouwer, W. B., Koopmanschap, M. A., Stolk, E. A., & Nieboer, A. P. (2014). Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 102, 83–93. CrossRef
Sen, A., & Nussbaum, M. (1993). The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane.
Grewal, I., Lewis, J., Flynn, T., Brown, J., Bond, J., & Coast, J. (2006). Developing attribute for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities? Social Science & Medicine, 62(8), 1891–1901. CrossRef
Gabriel, Z., & Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life from the perspectives of older people. Ageing and Society, 24(05), 675–691. CrossRef
Francis, J., & Byford, S. (2011). SCIE’s approach to economic evaluation in social care. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Netten, A., Burge, P., Malley, J., Potoglou, D., Towers, A. M., Brazier, J., Flynn, T., Forder, J., & Wall, B. (2012) Outcomes of social care for adults: Developing a preference weighted measure. Health Technology Assessment, 16(16).
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard: University Press.
Sen, A. (1979) Equality of what? The Tanner lecture on human values. Stanford: Stanford University.
Sen, A. (2008). The economics of happiness and capability. In L. Bruni, F. Comim & M. Pugno (Eds.), Capabilities and happiness. New York: Oxford University Press.
Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–114. CrossRef
Robeyns, I. (2006). The capability approach in practice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 351–376. CrossRef
Stolk, E. A., & van Nooten, E. (2005) Values for resource allocation should expose the adaptation process, not the outcome. Ethics Journal of the American Medical Assosiation, 7(2), 599–607.
Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59. CrossRef
Sen, A. (2005) Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 151–166.
Alkire, S., Comim, F., & Qizilbash, M. (Eds.). (2008). The capability approach. concepts: Measures and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Versteegh, M. M., & Brouwer, B. F. (2016). Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines. Social Science & Medicine, 165, 66–74. CrossRef
Binder, M. (2014). Subjective well-being capabilities: Bridging the gap between the capability approach and subjective well-being research. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(5), 1197–1217. CrossRef
Anand (2005). Equity, capabilities and health. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 219–222. CrossRef
Netten, A., Beadle-Brown, J., Caiels, J., Forder, J., Malley, J., Smith, N., & Windle, K. (2011). ASCOT: Main guidance v2. 1. In PSSRU discussion paper 2716/3. University of Kent, Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit.
Netten, A., Ryan, M., Smith, P., Skatun, D., Healey, A., Knapp, M., & Wykes, T. (2002). The development of a measure of social care outcome for older people. PSSRU Discussion Paper 1690/2. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent.
Forder, J., Netten, A., Caiels, J., Smith, J., & Malley, J. (2007) Measuring outcomes in social care: Conceptual development and empirical design, Quality Measurement Framework Project PSSRU Interim report.
Al-Janabi, H., Keeley, T., Mitchell, P., & Coast, J. (2013). Can capabilities be self-reported? A think aloud study. Social Science & Medicine, 87, 116–122. CrossRef
Sprangers, M. A., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science & Medicine, 48(11), 1507–1515. CrossRef
Salloch, S., Vollmann, J., & Schildmann, J. (2013) Ethics by opinion poll? The functions of attitudes research normative deliberations in medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 1–6.
- Quality of life in a broader perspective: Does ASCOT reflect the capability approach?
M. S. van Loon
K. M. van Leeuwen
R. W. J. G. Ostelo
J. E. Bosmans
G. A. M. Widdershoven
- Springer International Publishing
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta