IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Oncologist Preferences for Health States Associated with the Treatment of Advanced Ovarian Cancer

  • Lisa M. Hess

    (Indiana University School of Medicine, Departments of Public Health and Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA; Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA)

  • Daniel C. Malone

    (College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA)

  • Grant H. Skrepnek

    (College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA)

  • Pamela G. Reed

    (College of Nursing, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA)

  • Edward Armstrong

    (College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA)

  • Stephen Joel. Coons

    (Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA)

Registered author(s):

    Background: For advanced epithelial ovarian cancer, oncologists are faced with multiple treatment options that differ in terms of possible clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Objective: To explore oncologists' preferences for hypothetical outcome scenarios (i.e. health states) resulting from various treatment options. Methods: Six hypothetical health states reflecting varying levels of toxicity, treatment efficacy and emotional well-being were developed representing advanced ovarian cancer treatment. During face-to-face interviews, oncologists provided their relative preferences for these health states using a visual analogue scale and Standard Gamble exercise. Results: The 34 participating oncologists consistently preferred health states reflecting high treatment efficacy over low efficacy for patients with newly diagnosed disease, regardless of toxicity or emotional well-being. In the setting of recurrent disease, physicians preferred a heath state only if it reflected both high efficacy and positive emotional well-being. Conclusions: These data suggest that oncologists may choose treatments that maximize clinical efficacy only when not associated with severe toxicities or low emotional well-being unless associated with a large improvement in efficacy. Physicians may prefer a more toxic chemotherapy regimen that improves survival, and are more willing to compromise emotional well-being for a large survival advantage in the setting of newly diagnosed disease. Slight improvements in clinical efficacy may not be acceptable to oncologists unless associated with higher emotional well-being for the patient.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

    Volume (Year): 8 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 4 ()
    Pages: 217-223

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wkh:aheahp:v:8:y:2010:i:4:p:217-223
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:aheahp:v:8:y:2010:i:4:p:217-223. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.