The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background:The ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure is a self-complete questionnaire developed to aid economic evaluation of supportive care interventions.Aim:To determine the feasibility of completing ICECAP–Supportive Care Measure alongside EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A (generic measures used in economic evaluation) among patients receiving hospice care, close persons and healthcare professionals.Design:Participants were asked to ‘think aloud’ while completing ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure and two other generic measures used in economic evaluation, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A, and then participate in a semi-structured interview. From verbatim transcripts, five raters identified the frequency of errors in comprehension, retrieval, judgement and response. Qualitative data were analysed using constant comparison.Setting/participants:Eligible patients were identified from one UK hospice by a research nurse. Close persons and healthcare professionals were identified by the patient. In all, 72 semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients (n = 33), close persons (n = 22) and healthcare professionals (n = 17).Results:Patients and close persons reported that the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure was most appropriate for measuring their quality of life. It appeared more meaningful, easier to complete and had fewest errors (3.9% among patients, 4.5% among close persons) compared to EQ-5D-5L (9.7% among patients, 5.5% among close persons). Healthcare professionals acknowledged the value of the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure but had fewer errors in completing the EQ-5D-5L (3.5% versus 6.7%). They found it easier to complete because it focuses on observable health states.Conclusions:The ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure is feasible to use and perceived as appropriate for evaluating palliative care interventions. Healthcare professionals with limited knowledge of the patient who act as proxy completers may find the measure difficult to complete.

BackgroundNetwork types and characteristics have been linked to the capacity of inter-personal environments to mobilise and share resources. The aim of this paper is to examine personal network types in relation to long-term condition management in order to identify the properties of network types most likely to provide support for those with a long-term condition.MethodA cross-sectional observational survey of people with type 2 diabetes using interviews and questionnaires was conducted between April and October 2013 in six European countries: Greece, Spain, Bulgaria, Norway, United Kingdom, and Netherlands. 1862 people with predominantly lower socio-economic status were recruited from each country. We used k-means clustering analysis to derive the network types, and one-way analysis of variance and multivariate logistic regression analysis to explore the relationship between network type socio-economic characteristics, self-management monitoring and skills, well-being, and network member work.ResultsFive network types of people with long-term conditions were identified: restricted, minimal family, family, weak ties, and diverse. Restricted network types represented those with the poorest self-management skills and were associated with limited support from social network members. Restricted networks were associated with poor indicators across self-management capacity, network support, and well-being. Diverse networks were associated with more enhanced self-management skills amongst those with a long-term condition and high level of emotional support. It was the three network types which had a large number of network members (diverse, weak ties, and family) where healthcare utilisation was most likely to correspond to existing health needs.DiscussionOur findings suggest that type of increased social involvement is linked to greater self-management capacity and potentially lower formal health care costs indicating that diverse networks constitute the optimal network type as a policy in terms of the design of LTCM interventions and building support for people with LTCs.

The association between QTcD and MMSE requires cautious interpretation and further extensive investigation. However, if confirmed by longitudinal studies, the finding could play a role in the management of the subjects with MCI.