IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v10y2017i5d10.1007_s40271-017-0235-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Daniela R. Bien

    (Maastricht University)

  • Marion Danner

    (University of Cologne)

  • Vera Vennedey

    (University of Cologne)

  • Daniele Civello

    (University of Cologne)

  • Silvia M. Evers

    (Maastricht University)

  • Mickaël Hiligsmann

    (Maastricht University)

Abstract

Introduction As several studies have been conducted to elicit patients’ preferences for cancer treatment, it is important to provide an overview and synthesis of these studies. This study aimed to systematically review discrete choice experiments (DCEs) about patients’ preferences for cancer treatment and assessed the relative importance of outcome, process and cost attributes. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE to identify all DCEs investigating patients’ preferences for cancer treatment between January 2010 and April 2016. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction sheet, and a reporting quality assessment was applied to all studies. Attributes were classified into outcome, process and cost attributes, and their relative importance was assessed. Results A total of 28 DCEs were identified. More than half of the studies (56%) received an aggregate score lower than 4 on the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) 5-point scale. Most attributes were related to outcome (70%), followed by process (25%) and cost (5%). Outcome attributes were most often significant (81%), followed by process (73%) and cost (67%). The relative importance of outcome attributes was ranked highest in 82% of the cases where it was included, followed by cost (43%) and process (12%). Conclusion This systematic review suggests that attributes related to cancer treatment outcomes are the most important for patients. Process and cost attributes were less often included in studies but were still (but less) important to patients in most studies. Clinicians and decision makers should be aware that attribute importance might be influenced by level selection for that attribute.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniela R. Bien & Marion Danner & Vera Vennedey & Daniele Civello & Silvia M. Evers & Mickaël Hiligsmann, 2017. "Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(5), pages 553-565, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0235-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goodall, Stephen & King, Madeleine & Ewing, Jane & Smith, Narelle & Kenny, Patricia, 2012. "Preferences for support services among adolescents and young adults with cancer or a blood disorder: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 304-311.
    2. Louviere, Jordan J. & Lancsar, Emily, 2009. "Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 527-546, October.
    3. Sullivan, Mark, 2003. "The new subjective medicine: taking the patient's point of view on health care and health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1595-1604, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    2. Shan Jiang & Ru Ren & Yuanyuan Gu & Varinder Jeet & Ping Liu & Shunping Li, 2023. "Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 43-57, January.
    3. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    4. Mo Zhou & Winter Maxwell Thayer & John F. P. Bridges, 2018. "Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 175-187, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    2. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Thomas G. Poder & Nathalie Carrier & Mathieu Roy & Chantal Camden, 2020. "A Discrete Choice Experiment on Women’s Preferences for Water Immersion During Labor and Birth: Identification, Refinement and Selection of Attributes and Levels," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-11, March.
    4. Natasa Sedlar & Mitja Lainscak & Jerneja Farkas, 2020. "Living with Chronic Heart Failure: Exploring Patient, Informal Caregiver, and Healthcare Professional Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Murali Sundaram & Jan Kavookjian & Julie Patrick, 2009. "Health-Related Quality of Life and Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(2), pages 121-133, June.
    6. Vujicic, Marko & Shengelia, Bakhuti & Alfano, Marco & Thu, Ha Bui, 2011. "Physician shortages in rural Vietnam: Using a labor market approach to inform policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(7), pages 970-977.
    7. Buckley, Neil J. & Cuff, Katherine & Hurley, Jeremiah & McLeod, Logan & Mestelman, Stuart & Cameron, David, 2012. "An experimental investigation of mixed systems of public and private health care finance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 713-729.
    8. Eissens van der Laan, M.R. & van Offenbeek, M.A.G. & Broekhuis, H. & Slaets, J.P.J., 2014. "A person-centred segmentation study in elderly care: Towards efficient demand-driven care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 68-76.
    9. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    10. Cho, Sun Mi & Park, Chan-ung & Song, Min, 2020. "The evolution of social health research topics: A data-driven analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    11. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    12. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    13. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    14. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    15. Anthony Scott & Peter Sivey, 2017. "Motivation and Competition in Health Care," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2017n05, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    16. Kim, Ga-Eun & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "South Korean consumers’ preferences for eco-friendly gasoline sedans: Results from a choice experiment survey," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-7.
    17. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    18. Caroline M. Vass & Niall J. Davison & Geert Stichele & Katherine Payne, 2020. "A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(2), pages 163-173, April.
    19. Peña-Longobardo, L.M. & Rodríguez-Sánchez, B. & Oliva-Moreno, J., 2021. "The impact of widowhood on wellbeing, health, and care use: A longitudinal analysis across Europe," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    20. Finn, Mark & Sarangi, Srikant, 2008. "Quality of life as a mode of governance: NGO talk of HIV 'positive' health in India," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 1568-1578, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0235-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.