Cargando…

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

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 treatm...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bien, Daniela R., Danner, Marion, Vennedey, Vera, Civello, Daniele, Evers, Silvia M., Hiligsmann, Mickaël
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5605613/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28364387
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y
_version_ 1783265015774576640
author Bien, Daniela R.
Danner, Marion
Vennedey, Vera
Civello, Daniele
Evers, Silvia M.
Hiligsmann, Mickaël
author_facet Bien, Daniela R.
Danner, Marion
Vennedey, Vera
Civello, Daniele
Evers, Silvia M.
Hiligsmann, Mickaël
author_sort Bien, Daniela R.
collection PubMed
description 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5605613
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56056132017-10-04 Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments Bien, Daniela R. Danner, Marion Vennedey, Vera Civello, Daniele Evers, Silvia M. Hiligsmann, Mickaël Patient Systematic Review 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2017-03-31 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5605613/ /pubmed/28364387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Bien, Daniela R.
Danner, Marion
Vennedey, Vera
Civello, Daniele
Evers, Silvia M.
Hiligsmann, Mickaël
Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments
title Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments
title_full Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments
title_fullStr Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments
title_full_unstemmed Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments
title_short Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments
title_sort patients’ preferences for outcome, process and cost attributes in cancer treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5605613/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28364387
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y
work_keys_str_mv AT biendanielar patientspreferencesforoutcomeprocessandcostattributesincancertreatmentasystematicreviewofdiscretechoiceexperiments
AT dannermarion patientspreferencesforoutcomeprocessandcostattributesincancertreatmentasystematicreviewofdiscretechoiceexperiments
AT vennedeyvera patientspreferencesforoutcomeprocessandcostattributesincancertreatmentasystematicreviewofdiscretechoiceexperiments
AT civellodaniele patientspreferencesforoutcomeprocessandcostattributesincancertreatmentasystematicreviewofdiscretechoiceexperiments
AT everssilviam patientspreferencesforoutcomeprocessandcostattributesincancertreatmentasystematicreviewofdiscretechoiceexperiments
AT hiligsmannmickael patientspreferencesforoutcomeprocessandcostattributesincancertreatmentasystematicreviewofdiscretechoiceexperiments