% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Ubels:292332,
      author       = {J. Ubels$^*$ and K. Hernandez-Villafuerte$^*$ and E.
                      Niebauer and M. Schlander$^*$},
      title        = {{T}he {U}se of a {C}omprehensive {C}oncept of {C}apability
                      for {W}ellbeing {A}ssessment: {A} {B}est-{F}it {F}ramework
                      {S}ynthesis.},
      journal      = {Health care analysis},
      volume       = {nn},
      issn         = {1065-3058},
      address      = {Dordrecht [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2024-01683},
      pages        = {nn},
      year         = {2024},
      note         = {#EA:C100#LA:C100# / epub},
      abstract     = {Developing an instrument with the capability approach can
                      be challenging, since the capability concept of Sen is
                      ambiguous concerning the burdens that people experience
                      whilst achieving their capabilities. A solution is to
                      develop instruments with a comprehensive concept of
                      capability, such as the concept of 'option-freedom'. This
                      study aims to develop a theoretical framework for instrument
                      development with the concept of option-freedom. A best-fit
                      framework synthesis was conducted with seven qualitative
                      papers by one researcher. Two researchers supported the
                      synthesis by discussing interim results during the
                      synthesis. A priori concepts of option-freedom were used to
                      deductively code against. Themes and subthemes were
                      developed inductively when data did not match a priori
                      themes. Seven paper were identified that fulfilled the
                      eligibility criteria. Four themes emerged from the
                      synthesis. (1) Option Wellbeing represents a range of
                      options that need to be satisfied for individuals to
                      experience wellbeing. (2) Self-Realization represents that
                      there are experiences in an individual's life that have
                      value beyond realizing options. (3) Perceived Access to
                      Options represents the perceived ability of individuals to
                      realize freedoms. (4) Perceived Control represents the
                      experience of having control. Developing an instrument with
                      the proposed framework has two benefits. First, it
                      acknowledges the importance of assessing impediments in
                      realizing capabilities for wellbeing assessment. Secondly,
                      the themes form a broad informational base by including
                      themes related to subjective wellbeing. Future research
                      should study the feasibility of implementing the framework
                      for instrument development.},
      keywords     = {Best-fit framework synthesis (Other) / Capability approach
                      (Other) / Health economics (Other) / Outcome measurement
                      (Other) / Patient-reported outcomes (Other) / Quality of
                      life (Other)},
      cin          = {C100},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C100-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:39158650},
      doi          = {10.1007/s10728-024-00488-w},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/292332},
}