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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Swann Arp Adams & Oluwole Adeyemi Babatunde & Whitney E. Zahnd & Peiyin Hung & Karen E. Wickersham & Nathaniel Bell & Jan M. Eberth, 2025. "An Investigation of Travel Distance and Timeliness of Breast Cancer Treatment Among a Diverse Cohort in the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(2), pages 1-13, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Vo, Linh K. & Allen, Michelle J. & Cunich, Michelle & Thillainadesan, Janani & McPhail, Steven M. & Sharma, Pakhi & Wallis, Shannon & McGowan, Kelly & Carter, Hannah E., 2024. "Stakeholders’ preferences for the design and delivery of virtual care services: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Moonsammy, Stephan & Boman, Mattias & Ramdhanie, Vidwatee & Renn-Moonsammy, Donna-Marie, 2024. "State-of-the art valuation of wetland ecosystem services in Small Island Developing States: A systematic review with an emphasis on future research needs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).

    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. Filiptseva, Anna & Filler, Günther & Odening, Martin, 2022. "Compensation Options for Quarantine Costs in Plant Production," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329595, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Chiara Seghieri & Alessandro Mengoni & Sabina Nuti, 2014. "Applying discrete choice modelling in a priority setting: an investigation of public preferences for primary care models," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 773-785, September.
    3. 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.
    4. R. Hoorn & A. Donders & M. Oppe & P. Stalmeier, 2014. "The Better than Dead Method: Feasibility and Interpretation of a Valuation Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 789-799, August.
    5. Ryan, Mandy & Kinghorn, Philip & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Francis, Jill J., 2014. "Valuing patients' experiences of healthcare processes: Towards broader applications of existing methods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 194-203.
    6. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    8. Anthony Scott & Peter Sivey, 2022. "Motivation and competition in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(8), pages 1695-1712, August.
    9. 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.
    10. Erik Berglund & Emilie Friberg & Monika Engblom & Åsa Andersén & Veronica Svärd, 2022. "Coordination and Perceived Support for Return to Work: A Cross-Sectional Study among Patients in Swedish Healthcare," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-11, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Martina F. Baumann & Daniel Frank & Lena-Charlotte Kulla & Thomas Stieglitz, 2020. "Obstacles to Prosthetic Care—Legal and Ethical Aspects of Access to Upper and Lower Limb Prosthetics in Germany and the Improvement of Prosthetic Care from a Social Perspective," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, January.
    13. Mark Harrison & Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Terry Flynn & Jordan Louviere & Katherine Payne, 2014. "Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 151-170, June.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Mandeville, Kate L. & Ulaya, Godwin & Lagarde, Mylène & Muula, Adamson S. & Dzowela, Titha & Hanson, Kara, 2016. "The use of specialty training to retain doctors in Malawi: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 109-118.
    18. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Gian Luca Di Tanna & Peter Vickerman, 2018. "How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1053-1066, November.
    19. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Mørkbak, Morten Raun, 2014. "Identifying latent interest-groups: An analysis of heterogeneous preferences for income-redistribution," MPRA Paper 58823, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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.