IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lee/wpaper/1504.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Patient Preferences for Pain Management Services in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • David Meads

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • John O'Dwyer

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Claire Hulme

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Phani Chintakayala

    (Leeds University Business School & Consumer Data Research Centre, University of Leeds)

  • Karen Vinall-Collier

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

Abstract

Pain from advanced cancer remains prevalent, severe and often under-treated. New services are required to improve quality of life for patients with cancer pain. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with patients to understand their preferences for pain management services to inform service development. Focus groups were used to develop the DCE ‘attributes’ and ‘levels’. The attributes were waiting time, type of healthcare professional, out-of-pocket costs, side-effect control, quality of communication, quality of information, and pain control. Patients from 13 English palliative care services completed the DCE along with clinical and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questions. A conditional logit model was used to analyse the data. 221 patients completed the survey (45% female; mean age=64.6, range 21.6-92.2). The most important aspects of services were: good pain control, zero out-of-pocket costs and good side-effect control. Poor/ moderate pain control and £30 costs drew the highest negative preferences. Respondents were willing to incur costs ranging £10.26-£12.51 to reduce waiting time by 2 days, receive good information, good communication or to see a specialist pain doctor. Those with lower HRQoL were less willing to wait for treatment and willing to incur higher costs. Outcomes attributes (good pain control, few side effects) were more important than process attributes (waiting times, type of healthcare professional). However, the preference for good information and communication was greater than that to see some types of healthcare professional. Patients were willing to incur small costs (£10) and wait times to receive their preferred level of service.

Suggested Citation

  • David Meads & John O'Dwyer & Claire Hulme & Phani Chintakayala & Karen Vinall-Collier, 2015. "Patient Preferences for Pain Management Services in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Working Papers 1504, Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds.
  • Handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/file/2159/patient_preferences_for_pain_management_services_in_advanced_cancer_results_from_a_discrete_choice_experiment
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    discrete choice experiment; cancer pain; patient preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:lee:wpaper:1504. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Judy Wright (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/heleeuk.html .

    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.