IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v16y2023i4d10.1007_s40271-023-00631-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cancer Survivor Preferences for Models of Breast Cancer Follow-Up Care: Selecting Attributes for Inclusion in a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Sanjeewa Kularatna

    (Queensland University of Technology (QUT))

  • Michelle Allen

    (Queensland University of Technology (QUT))

  • Ruvini M. Hettiarachchi

    (The University of Queensland)

  • Fiona Crawford-Williams

    (Flinders University
    Queensland University of Technology (QUT))

  • Sameera Senanayake

    (Queensland University of Technology (QUT))

  • David Brain

    (Queensland University of Technology (QUT))

  • Nicolas H. Hart

    (Flinders University
    Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
    Edith Cowan University
    The University of Notre Dame Australia)

  • Bogda Koczwara

    (Flinders University
    Flinders Medical Centre)

  • Carolyn Ee

    (Flinders University
    NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University)

  • Raymond J. Chan

    (Flinders University
    Queensland University of Technology (QUT))

Abstract

Background and Objective It is critical to evaluate cancer survivors’ preferences when developing follow-up care models to better address the needs of cancer survivors. This study was conducted to understand the key attributes of breast cancer follow-up care for use in a future discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey. Methods Key attributes of breast cancer follow-up care models were generated using a multi-stage, mixed-methods approach. Focus group discussions were conducted with cancer survivors and clinicians to generate a range of attributes of current and ideal follow-up care. These attributes were then prioritised using an online survey with survivors and healthcare providers. The DCE attributes and levels were finalised via an expert panel discussion based on the outcomes of the previous stages. Results Four focus groups were held, two with breast cancer survivors (n = 7) and two with clinicians (n = 8). Focus groups generated sixteen attributes deemed important for breast cancer follow-up care models. The prioritisation exercise was conducted with 20 participants (14 breast cancer survivors and 6 clinicians). Finally, the expert panel selected five attributes for a future DCE survey tool to elicit cancer survivors’ preferences on breast cancer follow-up care. The final attributes included: the care team, allied health and supportive care, survivorship care planning, travel for appointments, and out-of-pocket costs. Conclusions Attributes identified can be used in future DCE studies to elicit cancer survivors’ preferences for breast cancer follow-up care. This strengthens the design and implementation of follow-up care programs that best suit the needs and expectations of breast cancer survivors.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanjeewa Kularatna & Michelle Allen & Ruvini M. Hettiarachchi & Fiona Crawford-Williams & Sameera Senanayake & David Brain & Nicolas H. Hart & Bogda Koczwara & Carolyn Ee & Raymond J. Chan, 2023. "Cancer Survivor Preferences for Models of Breast Cancer Follow-Up Care: Selecting Attributes for Inclusion in a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(4), pages 371-383, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00631-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00631-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-023-00631-0
    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/s40271-023-00631-0?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. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2017. "The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 298-313, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jackson, Louise & Al-Janabi, Hareth & Roberts, Tracy & Ross, Jonthan, 2021. "Exploring young people's preferences for STI screening in the UK: A qualitative study and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    2. Simon Deeming & Kim Edmunds & Alice Knight & Andrew Searles & Anthony P. Shakeshaft & Christopher M. Doran, 2022. "A Benefit-Cost Analysis of BackTrack, a Multi-Component, Community-Based Intervention for High-Risk Young People in a Rural Australian Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-12, August.
    3. Adewole, Ayooluwa & Shipworth, Michelle & Lemaire, Xavier & Sanderson, Danielle, 2023. "Peer-to-Peer energy trading, independence aspirations and financial benefits among Nigerian households," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    4. Osborne, Matthew & Lambe, Fiona & Ran, Ylva & Dehmel, Naira & Tabacco, Giovanni Alberto & Balungira, Joshua & Pérez-Viana, Borja & Widmark, Erik & Holmlid, Stefan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2022. "Designing development interventions: The application of service design and discrete choice experiments in complex settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    5. Colene Bentley & Sara Izadi-Najafabadi & Adam Raymakers & Helen McTaggart-Cowan, 2022. "Qualitative Research Informing a Preference Study on Selecting Cannabis for Cancer Survivor Symptom Management: Design of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(4), pages 497-507, July.
    6. Galárraga, Omar & Kuo, Caroline & Mtukushe, Bulelwa & Maughan-Brown, Brendan & Harrison, Abigail & Hoare, Jackie, 2020. "iSAY (incentives for South African youth): Stated preferences of young people living with HIV," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    7. Marco Boeri & Alan J. McMichael & Joseph P. M. Kane & Francis A. O’Neill & Frank Kee, 2018. "Physician-Specific Maximum Acceptable Risk in Personalized Medicine: Implications for Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(5), pages 593-600, July.
    8. Sarah Costa & Dean A. Regier & Adam J. N. Raymakers & Samantha Pollard, 2021. "Genomic Testing for Relapsed and Refractory Lymphoid Cancers: Understanding Patient Values," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 187-196, March.
    9. Rod Mccoll & Yann Truong & Antonella La Rocca, 2019. "Service guarantees as a base for positioning in B2B," Post-Print hal-02326105, HAL.
    10. Magda Aguiar & Mark Harrison & Sarah Munro & Tiasha Burch & K. Julia Kaal & Marie Hudson & Nick Bansback & Tracey-Lea Laba, 2021. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments Using a Patient-Oriented Approach," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 389-397, July.
    11. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.
    12. Merle Gijsbers & Iris Elise Keizer & Stephanie Else Schouten & Janneke Louise Trompert & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Janine Astrid Til, 2021. "Public Preferences in Priority Setting when Admitting Patients to the ICU During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Pilot Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 331-338, May.
    13. Cleland, Jennifer & Porteous, Terry & Ejebu, Ourega-Zoé & Ryan, Mandy & Skåtun, Diane, 2022. "Won't you stay just a little bit longer? A discrete choice experiment of UK doctors’ preferences for delaying retirement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 60-68.
    14. Damon Willems & Eva-Lotta Hinzpeter & Hessel H. Zee & Christopher J. Sayed & John R. Ingram & Charlotte Beaudart & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Mickael Hiligsmann, 2023. "Patient Preferences in the Management of Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Results of a Multinational Discrete Choice Experiment in Europe," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(2), pages 153-164, March.
    15. Gregory Merlo & Mieke Driel & Lisa Hall, 2020. "Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Elizabeth Clearfield & Ellen Tambor & Ellen M. Janssen & Donna A. Messner, 2021. "Increasing the Patient-Centeredness of Health Economics and Outcomes Research Through Patient Engagement in Core Outcome Set Development," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 413-420, July.
    17. Kim Edmunds & Laura Wall & Scott Brown & Andrew Searles & Anthony P. Shakeshaft & Christopher M. Doran, 2021. "Exploring Community-Based Options for Reducing Youth Crime," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-12, May.

    More about this item

    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:spr:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00631-0. 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.