This paper estimates a neoclassical growth model that includes female and male education as separate explanatory variables. The model can be reparameterised so that the gender gap in education enters the model. The interpretation of its coefficient depends crucially on what other education variables appear in the equation. The average long‐run effects of female and male education on output per worker are estimated for a cross section of countries using long time averages of the data. The results support the World Bank's emphasis on the importance of female education in raising labour productivity and are robust to various sensitivity analyses.

This editorial questions the implications of the capability approach for health economics. Two specific issues are considered: the evaluative space of capablities (as opposed to health or utility) and the decision‐making principle of maximisation. The paper argues that the capability approach can provide a richer evaluative space enabling improved evaluation of many interventions. It also argues that more thought is needed about the decision‐making principles both within the capability approach and within health economics more generally. Specifically, researchers should analyse equity‐oriented principles such as equalisation and a ‘decent minimum’ of capability, rather than presuming that the goal must be the maximisation of capability. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Public health interventions have received increased attention from policy makers, and there has been a corresponding increase in the number of economic evaluations within the domain of public health. However, methods to evaluate public health interventions are less well established than those for medical interventions. Focusing on health as an outcome measure is likely to underestimate the impact of many public health interventions. This paper provides a review of outcome measures in public health; and describes the benefits of using the capability approach as a means to developing an all encompassing outcome measure.

The ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L are two index measures appropriate for use in health research. Assessment of content validity allows understanding of whether a measure captures the most relevant and important aspects of a concept. This paper reports a qualitative assessment of the content validity and appropriateness for use of the eq-5D-5L and ICECAP-A measures, using novel methodology. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with research professionals in the UK and Australia. Informants were purposively sampled based on their professional role. Data were analysed in an iterative, thematic and constant comparative manner. A two stage investigation - the comparative direct approach - was developed to address the methodological challenges of the content validity research and allow rigorous assessment. Informants viewed the ICECAP-A as an assessment of the broader determinants of quality of life, but lacking in assessment of health-related determinants. The eq-5D-5L was viewed as offering good coverage of health determinants, but as lacking in assessment of these broader determinants. Informants held some concerns about the content or wording of the Self-care, Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression items (EQ-5D-5L) and the Enjoyment, Achievement and attachment items (ICECAP-A). Using rigorous qualitative methodology the results suggest that the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L hold acceptable levels of content validity and are appropriate for use in health research. This work adds expert opinion to the emerging body of research using patients and public to validate these measures.