Qualitative tools
|
No.
|
Tool
|
No. of items
|
Author (year) country
|
Study Aim
|
Focus of tool
|
Language of tool
|
Target population
|
Method
|
1.
|
Interview
|
8
|
Weaver et al, (2014)[45], Canada
|
M
|
Health and diabetes self-management
|
English
|
Adults with diabetes
|
Measurement via semi-structured interviews; Analysis via two researchers
|
n.a.
|
Ndomoto et al. (2018)[46], UK
|
M
|
Health
|
English
|
Adults living in rural Kenya and urban deprived UK
|
Measurement via key informant interviews; FG and participant observation.
|
10
|
Sauter et al. (2018)[26], Germany
|
D/M
|
Health enhancing PA
|
German/ English
|
Older adults living in senior residences
|
Development of interview-guide by RT based on Anand’s capability questionnaire [66] and literature on older adults physical activity; Measurement via semi-structured interviews
|
2.
|
Videography
|
n.a.
|
Petros et al. (2016)[47], USA
|
M
|
Mental health recovery
|
English
|
Adults with mental illness
|
Four-week measurement via videography on the topic Tell us about your recovery; No RT present during recording; Transcription and analysis of data by RT
|
Mixed method
|
No.
|
Instrument
|
No. of items
|
Author (year) country
|
Study Aim
|
Focus of Tool
|
Language of tool
|
Target population
|
Method
|
3.
|
Questionnaire and Interview
|
20
|
Bucki et al. (2016)[63], Luxembourg
|
C
|
Health
|
Luxembourgish, Portuguese, French, German
|
Adult care givers
|
Measurement of relations between health capability factors of care givers using questionnaire-based (HCFC-8) interviews. Statistical analysis using Monte Carlo Markov Chain algorithms.
|
Quantitative tools
|
No.
|
Instrument
|
No. of items
|
Author (year) country
|
Study Aim
|
Focus of Tool
|
Language of tool
|
Target population
|
Method
|
4.
|
Questionnaires used in secondary data
|
n.a.
|
Abu-Zaineh & Woode (2018)[48], France
|
M
|
Health and self-management
|
English
|
Adults living in Palestine
|
Measurement of capabilities (health awareness, knowledge and living conditions) via Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling using data from the Palestinian Family Survey.
|
n.a.
|
Anand et al. (2005)[14], UK
|
M
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults living in British households
|
Measurement of capabilities and well-being by regression using data of the British Household Panel Survey
|
n.a.
|
Douptcheva et al. (2014) [64], UK
|
M
|
Health
|
English
|
Women living in Accra
|
Measurement of capabilities and functionings to identify factors that influence our health using data from the Women’s Health Study of Accra – Wave II.
|
1,760
|
Tellez et al. (2016)[65], France
|
M
|
WB
|
French
|
Older adults
|
Measurement of capabilities (freedom to perform self-care activities, freedom to participate in life of the household) by use of a latent variable modelling framework analyzing the 2008 Disability and Health Household Survey of France.
|
5.
|
ICECAP/ ICECAP-O
|
5
|
Coast et al. (2008)[15], UK
|
D
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥65
|
Lay terms defined by RT based on in-depth interviews [67]. Iterative semi-structured interviews to ensure understandable language. Valuation via survey interviews.
|
5
|
Coast et al. (2008)[49], UK
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥65
|
Validation via Chi-square analysis against socio-demographic information, health, nature of locality and environment, social support, participation, and comparison of data to priori set RT-expectations
|
5
|
Flynn et al. (2011)[50], UK
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥65
|
Construct validity measurement of tariff scores (Comparison with qualitative interviews of attribute development [67] and subjective wellbeing literature)
|
5
|
Couzner et al. (2012)[38], Australia
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥65
|
Measurement of relationship of ICECAP-O to EQ-5D and CTM-3 through Spearman’s rho, t-tests and chi-square tests.
|
5
|
Makai et al. (2012)[68], Netherlands
|
D/V
|
General WB
|
Dutch
|
Adults ≥65
|
Forward-backward-translation into Dutch by two independent translators; Measurement of concurrent (correlations of the nursing and family version with EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, Cantril’s ladder, overall life satisfaction) and discriminant validity (chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests)
|
5
|
Davis et al. (2013)[53], Canada
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥65
|
Comparison against the EQ-5D using EFA
|
5
|
Makai et al. (2013)[29], Netherlands
|
V
|
General WB
|
Dutch
|
Adults ≥65
|
Measurement of convergent (correlation with EQ-5D, IADL, GDS-15, SPF-IL and Cantril’s ladder) and discriminant validity (t test, one-way ANOVA and stepwise regression analyses)
|
5
|
Horwood et al. (2014)[51], UK
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥65
|
Face-validity measurement via “think aloud” study analysis and frequency of participant’s problems
|
5
|
Hörder et al. (2016)[42], Sweden
|
V
|
General WB
|
Swedish
|
Adults ≥65
|
Test-retest reliability (1-2 weeks apart) and item relevance measure (participants rated items from 0-100)
|
5
|
Davis et al. (2017)[52], Canada
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥65
|
Measurement of responsiveness (regression on age, sex, and faller status)
|
5
|
Sarabia-Cobo et al. (2017)[30], Spain
|
V
|
General WB
|
Spanish
|
Adults ≥65
|
Measurement of construct (factor analysis) and convergent validity (correlation with dimensions of the EQ-5D+C, ADRQL, ADL), and reliability (internal consistency-Cronbach Alpha)
|
5
|
Franklin et al. (2018)[43], UK
|
C/V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥65
|
Comparison of (1) tariff scores using OLS and CLAD regression models and (2) domain scores using MNL regression against the EQ-5D-3L
|
5
|
Milte et al. (2018)[44], Australia
|
C/V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥65
|
Comparison against the EQ-5D-3L using Spearman correlation coefficient and multiple linear regression
|
6.
|
ICECAP-A
|
5
|
Al-Janabi et al. (2012)[16], UK
|
D
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥18
|
Identification of important components of life through in-depth interviews; Iterative semi-structured interviews to refine attributes to a self-completion measure with one item per attribute
|
5
|
Al-Janabi et al. (2013)[54], UK
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥18
|
Think-aloud and semi-structured interviews to assess the feasibility of a self-reporting capability measurement
|
5
|
Al-Janabi et al. (2013)[39], UK
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥18
|
Measurement of construct validity (univariate analysis and correlations based on hypotheses made in advance)
|
5
|
Al-Janabi et al. (2016)[69], UK
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥18
|
Measurement of test-retest reliability (ICC- baseline and 2-week capability index scores)
|
5
|
Keeley et al. (2015)[37], UK
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥18
|
Measurement of responsiveness (anchor-based analysis; anchors: EQ-5D-3L, GAD-7, PHQ-8)
|
5
|
Goranitis et al (2016)[31], UK
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥18
|
Measure of acceptability, construct validity (convergent: Pearson’s correlation with EQ-5D-3L and ICIQ-OAB, Spearman’s correlation coefficient across dimension scores, and index and dimension scores; discriminant: one-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis H test)
|
5
|
Goranitis et al (2016)[32], UK
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥18
|
Assessment of construct validity (convergent: Pearson’s correlation with EQ-5D-5L; Discriminant: univariate and multivariate analysis) and sensitivity to change
|
5
|
Mitchell et al. (2017)[40], UK
|
V
|
General WB
|
English
|
Adults ≥18
|
Concept-mapping from condition-specific and capability items; Discriminant validity testing (Mann-Whitney U test using DASS-D and K10 data; Multivariable regression analysis using OLS)
|
5
|
Linton et al. (2018)[36], Germany
|
V
|
General WB
|
German
|
Adults ≥18
|
Measurement of internal-consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha), convergent (Pearson’s correlation with EQ-5D-3L, SF-6D, SWLS scores), and construct validity (OLS regressions)
|
5
|
Tang et al. (2018)[35], China
|
D/V
|
General WB
|
Chinese
|
Adults ≥18
|
RT translated original version into Chinese; FG evaluated appropriateness of the translation; pilot testing; backward translation; online-survey to check acceptability, reliability (item correlations), and validity (EFA and correlations with EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS)
|
7.
|
ICECAP-SCM
|
7
|
Sutton & Coast (2014)[17], UK
|
D
|
WB in end of life care
|
English
|
People at end of life
|
Interviews to determine conceptual elements of a good death; follow-up interviews to check conceptual attributes
|
8.
|
ICECAP-FC
|
10
|
Al-Janabi (2018)[18], UK
|
D
|
WB capabilities and functionings
|
English
|
Adults ≥18
|
ICECAP-A modified with additional question on functioning to each attribute by RT
|
9.
|
OCAP
|
64
|
Anand et al. (2009)[19], UK
|
D
|
General Capabilities (e.g. enjoying recreational time, political views, making friends bodily health and integrity)
|
English
|
Adults ≥18
|
Development of items based on Nussbaum criteria [27]
|
10.
|
OCAP-18
|
18
|
Lorgelly et al. (2015)[20], UK
|
D
|
General Capabilities (e.g. enjoying recreational time, political views, making friends bodily health and integrity)
|
English
|
Adults ≥18
|
Items, based on OCAP-questionnaire [19], reduced on analysis of FG, cognitive interviews, and factor analysis
|
11.
|
OxCAP-MH
|
16
|
Simon et al. (2013)[21], UK
|
D/V
|
General capabilities for mental health
|
English
|
Adults ≥18 with a mental illness
|
Adaption of the OCAP-18 [20] based on expert-FG and validation (correlation with GAF, EQ-5D-VAS, EQ-5D-3L)
|
16
|
Vergunst et al. (2017)[33], UK
|
V
|
General capabilities for mental health
|
English
|
Adults ≥18 with a mental illness
|
Measurement of internal-consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), test-retest (1-week apart; ICC), and construct validity (correlation with EQ-5D, BPRS, GAS, SIX)
|
16
|
Simon et al. (2018)[70], UK
|
D/V
|
General capabilities for mental health
|
English
|
Adults ≥18 with a mental illness
|
Forward-backward-translation of OxCAP-MH into German and linguistic validation through German native speakers
|
16
|
Laszewska et al. (2019)[34], Austria
|
C/V
|
General capabilities for mental health
|
German
|
Adults ≥18 with a mental illness
|
Comparison against the EQ-5D-5L (EFA). Measurement of responsiveness (anchor questionnaires and standardized response mean), discriminant validity (subgroup comparison using t test and one-way ANOVA), and test-retest (ICC; baseline - max 30 days after)
|
12.
|
CQ-CMH
|
104
|
Sacchetto et al. (2016)[22], Portugal
|
D/V
|
Mental Health
|
Portuguese
|
Consumers of mental health services
|
FG interview data analysis; development of item/rating scale by steering committee and additional comparison with Nussbaum criteria [27]; Assessment of face-validity
|
13.
|
ACQ-CMH-98
|
98
|
Sacchetto et al. (2018)[23], Portugal
|
D/V
|
Mental Health
|
Portuguese
|
Consumers of mental health services
|
Adaption of the CQ-CMH questionnaire [22] based on panel members judgement; Measurement of validity (correlation with WHOQOL-Bref, RAS, K6)
|
14.
|
Capability-based questionnaire
|
8
|
Kinghorn et al. (2015)[24], UK
|
D
|
WB
|
English
|
People suffering from chronic pain
|
FG interview and individual interviews to identify list of important capabilities; Development of questionnaire for self-completion based on identified capabilities by RT
|
15.
|
CADA
|
34
|
Ferrer et al. (2014)[25], USA
|
D
|
Physical Activity and Diet
|
English
|
Adults with obesity and diabetes
|
FG interviews were used to identify important themes; questionnaire created by RT based on themes
|
ADL=activities of daily living; ADRQL=Alzheimer’s disease related Quality of life; BPRS=Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; C=Comparison; CTM-3=3-Item Care Transition Measure; D=Development; EFA=exploratory factor analysis; FG=Focus group; GAF=Global Assessment of Functioning; ICC=Intra-class correlation coefficient; M=Measurement; OLS=ordinary least square; RAS=Recovery Assessment Scale; RT=Researcher Team; SIX=Objective Social Outcomes Index; V=Validation; WB= Well-Being
|