IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v12y2019i6d10.1007_s40271-019-00375-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Preferences for Breast Cancer Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Renata Leborato Guerra

    (Health Technology Assessment Unit of the Brazilian National Institute of Cancer)

  • Luciana Castaneda

    (Health Technology Assessment Unit of the Brazilian National Institute of Cancer)

  • Rita de Cássia Ribeiro Albuquerque

    (Health Technology Assessment Unit of the Brazilian National Institute of Cancer)

  • Camila Belo Tavares Ferreira

    (Teaching Coordination of the Brazilian National Cancer Institute)

  • Flávia de Miranda Corrêa

    (Health Technology Assessment Unit of the Brazilian National Institute of Cancer)

  • Ricardo Ribeiro Alves Fernandes

    (Health Technology Assessment Unit of the Brazilian National Institute of Cancer)

  • Liz Maria Almeida

    (Populational Research Division of the Brazilian National Institute of Cancer)

Abstract

Introduction Understanding how patients value different characteristics of an intervention and make trade-offs in a therapy choice context with potential benefit and possible harm may result in decisions for which a better reflected value is delivered. This systematic review summarizes patient preferences for breast cancer treatments elicited by discrete choice experiments (DCE). Methodology The electronic databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and Web of Science were last searched on May 9, 2019 without restrictions regarding language and time of publication. Original studies reporting patient preferences related to breast cancer treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, endocrine therapy, chemotherapy or palliative care) elicited by DCE were eligible. A narrative synthesis of the relative importance and trade-offs of the treatment attributes of each study was reported. Results Five studies conducted in Japan, Thailand, USA and the Netherlands with 146–298 participants evaluated preferences regarding chemotherapy regimens for advanced/metastatic disease, and breast reconstruction after mastectomy. The attributes with major relative effects on preferences were greater survival, better aesthetic result of the surgery, and lower side effects and complication rates. Patients would trade a better aesthetic result to minimize complication rates, and, in advanced disease, the willingness to pay was greater for gains in survival and to avoid some severe adverse events. Conclusion Despite the relative lack of evidence in this specific context, our review shows that breast cancer patients naturally value greater benefit and, in scenarios of advanced and metastatic disease, are willing to face risks of some side effects for gains in survival.

Suggested Citation

  • Renata Leborato Guerra & Luciana Castaneda & Rita de Cássia Ribeiro Albuquerque & Camila Belo Tavares Ferreira & Flávia de Miranda Corrêa & Ricardo Ribeiro Alves Fernandes & Liz Maria Almeida, 2019. "Patient Preferences for Breast Cancer Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(6), pages 559-569, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00375-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00375-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-019-00375-w
    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/s40271-019-00375-w?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. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    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. 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.
    2. Hennessy, Jack & Mortimer, Duncan & Sweeney, Rohan & Woode, Maame Esi, 2023. "Donor versus recipient preferences for aid allocation: A systematic review of stated-preference studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 334(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. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    2. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    3. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    4. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    5. Aulo Gelli & Francisco Espejo & Jing Shen & Elizabeth Kristjansson, 2014. "Putting It All Together: Aggregating Impacts of School-Feeding Programmes on Education, Health and Nutrition: Two Proposed Methodologies," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2014-036, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    6. Michela Tinelli & Mandy Ryan & Christine Bond, 2016. "What, who and when? Incorporating a discrete choice experiment into an economic evaluation," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    8. Julie Ratcliffe & Leah Couzner & Terry Flynn & Michael Sawyer & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Leonie Burgess, 2011. "Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 15-27, January.
    9. Luyten, Jeroen & Beutels, Philippe & Vandermeulen, Corinne & Kessels, Roselinde, 2022. "Social preferences for adopting new vaccines in the national immunization program: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 303(C).
    10. Gelli, Aulo & Espejo, Francisco & Shen, Jing & Kristjansson, Elizabeth, 2014. "Putting it all together: Aggregating impacts of school-feeding programmes on education, health and nutrition: Two proposed methodologies," WIDER Working Paper Series 036, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    11. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    12. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    13. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    14. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    15. Paal Joranger & Arild Nesbakken & Halfdan Sorbye & Geir Hoff & Arne Oshaug & Eline Aas, 2020. "Survival and costs of colorectal cancer treatment and effects of changing treatment strategies: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 321-334, April.
    16. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    17. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    18. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    20. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.

    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:12:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00375-w. 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.