Does freedom make a difference?
Perceived capabilities—a subjective operationalization of Sen’s concept of capability—and subjective well-being are increasingly regarded as relevant information about individual well-being to guide resources allocation in healthcare. Although they refer to different notions, both types of measures rely on self-reported information and little is known as to how they compare together empirically. The aim of this paper is to investigate differences between measures of subjective well-being and of perceived capabilities in terms of their correlation with dimensions of health-related quality of life using panel data concerning a sample of 293 breast cancer and melanoma patients. Regression analyses suggest that the measures capture quite different aspects of the patients’ welfare. Differences in the correlation with dimensions of health also seem consistent with the underlying notions to which these measures refer. However, our findings also suggest that future researches should aim at determining how measures of perceived capabilities may be influenced by individual personality traits.
KeywordsSubjective well-being Capabilities Health-related quality of life
JEL ClassificationD63 I31
We are particularly thankful to comments from participants at the JESF (French Health Economics Conference), Marc Fleurbaey and two anonymous reviewers. Philippe Tessier benefited from a fellowship from La Ligue contre le cancer (French league against Cancer). Josselin Thuilliez benefited from a Fulbright grant and a Princeton fellowship at Princeton University.
- 1.National Health Care Institute (ZIN): Guideline for the conduct of economic evaluations in health care (Dutch Version). https://english.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publications/reports/2016/06/16/guideline-for-economic-evaluations-in-healthcare (2016). Accessed 22 Mar 2018
- 2.NICE: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2013)Google Scholar
- 3.Pharmaceutical Management Agency: Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis. Methods for cost-utility analysis (Version 2.1)., Wellington, New Zealand (2012)Google Scholar
- 4.Research group on economic evaluation: Guideline for economic evaluation of healthcare technologies in Japan, Tokyo (2013)Google Scholar
- 5.Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada (2006)Google Scholar
- 6.HAS: Choix méthodologiques pour l’évaluation économique à la HAS. Haute Autorité de Santé (2011)Google Scholar
- 14.Vergunst, F., Jenkinson, C., Burns, T., Anand, P., Gray, A., Rugkåsa, J., Simon, J.: Psychometric validation of a multi-dimensional capability instrument for outcome measurement in mental health research OxCAP-MH. Health Qual. Life Outcomes (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0825-3 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Diener, E., Oishi, S., Lucas, R.: Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and life satisfaction. In: Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J. (eds.) The oxford handbook of positive psychology, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, NY (2002)Google Scholar
- 26.Anand, P.: Happiness explained: what human flourishing is and what we can do to promote it. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016)Google Scholar
- 28.Anand, P., Santos, C., Smith, R.: The measurement of capabilities. In: Basu, K., Kanbur, R. (eds.) Arguments for a better world: essays in honor of amartya sen: volume I: ethics, welfare, and measurement and volume II: society, institutions, and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
- 34.Sen, A.: Development as capability expansion. In: Fukuda-Parr, S. (ed.) Readings in human development. Oxford University Press, New Delhi and New York (2013)Google Scholar
- 36.Bourdon, M., Blanchin, M., Tessier, P., Campone, M., Quéreux, G., Dravet, F., Sébille, V., Bonnaud-Antignac, A.: Changes in quality of life after a diagnosis of cancer: a 2-year study comparing breast cancer and melanoma patients. Qual. Life Res. 25, 1969–1979 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1244-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.OECD: OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. OECD Publishing (2013)Google Scholar
- 38.National Research Council: Subjective well-being: measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2013). https://doi.org/10.17226/18548
- 43.Hofmann, K., Schori, D., Abel, T.: Self-reported capabilities among young male adults in Switzerland: translation and psychometric evaluation of a German, French and Italian version of a closed survey instrument. Soc. Indic. Res. 114, 723–738 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0170-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Aaronson, N.K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N.J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S.B., de Haes, J.C.: The European Organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 85, 365–376 (1993)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 45.Fayers, P., Aaronson, N.K., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., Bottomley, A.: EORTC QLQC30 Scoring Manual, 3rd edn. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels (2001)Google Scholar
- 58.Dolan, P., Fujiwara, D.: Valuing mental health: how a subjective wellbeing approach can show just how much it matters. UKCP report (2014)Google Scholar