Show simple item record

dc.rights.licenseAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
dc.contributor.authorMyring, Gareth
dc.contributor.authorMitchell, Paul Mark
dc.contributor.authorKernohan, W. George
dc.contributor.authorMcIlfatrick, Sonja
dc.contributor.authorCudmore, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorFinucane, Anne M.
dc.contributor.authorGraham-Wisener, Lisa
dc.contributor.authorHewison, Alistair
dc.contributor.authorJones, Louise
dc.contributor.authorJordan, Joanne
dc.contributor.authorMcKibben, Laurie
dc.contributor.authorMuldrew, Deborah H. L.
dc.contributor.authorZafar, Shazia
dc.contributor.authorCoast, Joanna
dc.identifierpublisher-id: s12904-022-01012-4
dc.identifiermanuscript: 1012
dc.identifierdoi: 10.1186/s12904-022-01012-4
dc.identifier.citationMyring, G., Mitchell, P.M., Kernohan, W.G., McIlfatrick, S., Cudmore, S., Finucane, A.M., Graham-Wisener, L., Hewison, A., Jones, L., Jordan, J., McKibben, L., Muldrew, D.H.L., Zafar, S. and Coast, J. (2022) ‘An analysis of the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM capability wellbeing measure in a palliative care hospice setting’, BMC Palliative Care, 21(1), p. 121. Available at:
dc.descriptionFrom Springer Nature via Jisc Publications Router
dc.descriptionHistory: received 2021-06-30, accepted 2022-06-24, registration 2022-06-28, pub-electronic 2022-07-08, online 2022-07-08, collection 2022-12
dc.descriptionPublication status: Published
dc.descriptionFunder: Marie Curie; doi:; Grant(s): A20993, A17114, A17114, A20993, A17114, A17114, A17114, A17114, A17114, A17114, A17114, A20993, A17114, A20993
dc.descriptionFunder: Wellcome Trust; doi:; Grant(s): 205284/Z/16/Z, 205284/Z/16/Z
dc.description.abstractAbstract: Background: For 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. Methods: A 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. Results: Sixty-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). Conclusions: This 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.
dc.publisherBioMed Central
dc.rightsLicence for this article:
dc.rightsOpen Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
dc.sourceeissn: 1472-684X
dc.subjectPalliative care
dc.subjectPatient reported outcome measures
dc.subjectEconomic evaluation
dc.subjectQuality of life
dc.subjectHospice care
dc.titleAn analysis of the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM capability wellbeing measure in a palliative care hospice setting
qmu.authorCudmore, Sarah

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)