Sensitivity to change in well-being and health-related quality of life in adults with eating disorder symptoms: ICECAP-A versus EQ-5D-5L

Objective
Economic evaluations of treatments help to inform decisions on allocating health care resources. These evaluations involve comparing costs and effectiveness in terms of quality of life. To calculate quality-adjusted life years, generic health related quality of life is often used, but is criticized for not being sensitive to change in mental health populations. Another approach, using experienced well-being measured through capabilities with the ICECAP-A, has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this study was to investigate whether changes in individuals with eating disorder (ED) symptoms can be better captured using health related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) or well-being (ICECAP-A).
Method
Measurements at two time points with an interval of 1 year were used from a sample of 233 participants with self-reported ED symptoms. An analysis of variance was used to test whether the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A differed in sensitivity to change over time. In order to compare the two questionnaires in terms of clinically significant outcome, the reliable change index and clinical cut-off score were calculated.
Results
The two questionnaires did not differ in sensitivity to change. More individuals had recovered but also more had deteriorated according to the EQ-5D-5L compared to the ICECAP.
Discussion
The present study revealed no differences in sensitivity to change in health-related quality of life or well-being in individuals with ED symptoms in the context of mild clinical change. Results corroborated the pervasiveness of low quality of life in this population, even after alleviation of ED symptoms.
Public significance statement
Measuring treatment benefits in terms of improvements in quality of life is an integral part of economic evaluations in health care. It was expected that these treatment benefits would be better captured as changes in well-being (measured with the ICECAP-A) than as changes in health-related quality of life (measured with the EQ-5D-5L) for individuals with ED symptoms. Based on the results of this study, no preference for one of the two approaches was found.
Method: Measurements at two time points with an interval of 1 year were used from a sample of 233 participants with self-reported ED symptoms. An analysis of variance was used to test whether the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A differed in sensitivity to change over time. In order to compare the two questionnaires in terms of clinically significant outcome, the reliable change index and clinical cut-off score were calculated.

Results: The two questionnaires did not differ in sensitivity to change. More individuals had recovered but also more had deteriorated according to the EQ-5D-5L compared to the ICECAP.

Discussion: The present study revealed no differences in sensitivity to change in
health-related quality of life or well-being in individuals with ED symptoms in the context of mild clinical change. Results corroborated the pervasiveness of low quality of life in this population, even after alleviation of ED symptoms.

Public significance statement: Measuring treatment benefits in terms of improvements in quality of life is an integral part of economic evaluations in health care. It was expected that these treatment benefits would be better captured as changes in well-being (measured with the ICECAP-A) than as changes in health-related quality of life (measured with the EQ-5D-5L) for individuals with ED symptoms. Based on the results of this study, no preference for one of the two approaches was found.