Skip to main content

Table 3 Description of included studies and tools

From: Measuring capabilities in health and physical activity promotion: a systematic review

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) [23], 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) [24], 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) [25], 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 [35] and literature on older adult’s physical activity; Measurement via semi-structured interviews
26/21 Chakraborty et al. (2020) [26] D/M Healthy children’s growth Bangla/English children living in hoar region of Bangladesh Development of FG and individual interview guide by RT based on literature review and pilot testing; Measurement via FG and in-depth interviews with parents
2. Videography n.a. Petros et al. (2016) [28], 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) [43], 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) [44], France M Health and self-management English Young 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) [41], 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) [45], 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.
1760 Tellez et al. (2016) [46], 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.
n.a. Zwierzchowski and Panek (2020) [47], Poland M Subjective WB Polish General population ≥ 16 Measurement of capabilities and subjective well-being using the multiple indicator multiple cause model on the European-Survey of Income and Living Conditions in Poland (2015)
5. ICECAP/ ICECAP-O 5 Coast et al. (2008) [31], UK D General WB English Adults ≥65 Lay terms defined by RT based on in-depth interviews [48]. Iterative semi-structured interviews to ensure understandable language. Valuation via survey interviews.
5 Coast et al. (2008) [49], UK PP 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 PP General WB English Adults ≥65 Construct validity measurement of tariff scores (Comparison with qualitative interviews of attribute development [51] and subjective wellbeing literature)
5 Couzner et al. (2012) [52], Australia PP 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) [53], Netherlands D/PP 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) [54], Canada C/PP General WB English Adults ≥65 Comparison against the EQ-5D using EFA
5 Makai et al. (2013) [55], Netherlands PP 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) [56], UK PP General WB English Adults ≥65 Face-validity measurement via “think aloud” study analysis and frequency of participant’s problems
5 Hörder et al. (2016) [57], Sweden PP General WB Swedish Adults ≥65 Test-retest reliability (1–2 weeks apart) and item relevance measure (participants rated items from 0 to 100)
5 Davis et al. (2017) [54], Canada PP General WB English Adults ≥65 Measurement of responsiveness (regression on age, sex, and faller status)
5 Sarabia-Cobo et al. (2017) [58], Spain PP 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) [59], UK C/PP 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) [60], Australia C/PP General WB English Adults ≥65 Comparison against the EQ-5D-3L using Spearman correlation coefficient and multiple linear regression
5 Mitchell et al. (2020) [61], UK PP General WB English Adult ≥65 Measurement of response validity among people requiring kidney care using a think-aloud study
5 Baji et al. (2020) [62], Hungary D/PP General WB Hungarian Adult ≥65 RT translated original version into Hungarian; forward-backward translation; interviews (n = 15) to assess comprehensiveness and relevance; Measurement of: construct validity (one-way subgroup comparison and regression analysis); convergent validity (Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation (with EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS, WHO-5; happiness and satisfaction VAS,SWLS); Test-retest reliability (ICC baseline and 5% of participants right after baseline
6. ICECAP-A 5 Al-Janabi et al. (2012) [32], 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) [63], UK PP 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) [64], UK PP General WB English Adults ≥18 Measurement of construct validity (univariate analysis and correlations based on hypotheses made in advance)
5 Al-Janabi et al. (2015) [65], UK PP General WB English Adults ≥18 Measurement of test-retest reliability (ICC- baseline and 2-week capability index scores)
5 Keeley et al. (2015) [66], UK PP General WB English Adults ≥18 Measurement of responsiveness (anchor-based analysis; anchors: EQ-5D-3L, GAD-7, PHQ-8)
5 Goranitis et al. (2016) [67], UK PP 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) [68], UK PP 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) [69], UK PP 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) [70], Germany PP 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) [51], China D/PP 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)
5 Holst-Kristensen et al. (2020) [43], Denmark D/PP General WB Danish Adult ≥18 RT translated original version into Danish; forward-backward translation; pilot-testing in general population
5 Shahataheri et al. (2020) [29], Iran D/PP General WB Persian Adult ≥18 RT translated original version into Persian; forward-backward translation; pilot-testing in general population; Measurement of test-retest reliability (ICC-baseline and 2-week)
5 Mah et al. (2020) [71], Canada PP General WB English Adult ≥18 Measurement of construct validity: discriminant (t test, linear trend analysis or multiple regression); convergent (correlation with measures of the same concept: AQoL-8D, EQ-5D-5L, HUI-3, SF- 6D)
5 Mitchell et al. (2020) [61], UK PP General WB English Adult ≥18 Measurement of response validity among people requiring kidney care using a think-aloud study
5 Baji et al. (2020) [62], Hungary D/PP General WB Hungarian Adult ≥18 RT translated original version into Hungarian; forward-backward translation; interviews (n = 15) to assess comprehensiveness and relevance; Measurement of: construct validity (one-way subgroup comparison and regression analysis); convergent validity (Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation (with EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS, WHO-5; happiness and satisfaction VAS,SWLS); Test-retest reliability (ICC baseline and 5% of participants right after baseline
7. ICECAP-SCM 7 Sutton & Coast (2014) [33], 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) [34], 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) [35], 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 [72]
10. OCAP-18 18 Lorgelly et al. (2015) [42], 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 [35], reduced on analysis of FG, cognitive interviews, and factor analysis
11. OxCAP-MH 16 Simon et al. (2013) [36], UK D/PP 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) [49], UK PP 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) [30], UK D/PP 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) [73], Austria C/PP 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) [37], Portugal D/PP 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 [34]; Assessment of face-validity
13. ACQ-CMH-98 98 Sacchetto et al. (2018) [38], Portugal D/PP Mental Health Portuguese Consumers of mental health services Adaption of the CQ-CMH questionnaire [37] based on panel members judgement; Measurement of validity (correlation with WHOQOL-Bref, RAS, K6)
14. Capability-based questionnaire 8 Kinghorn et al. (2015) [39], 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) [40], 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
  1. 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