IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v13y2020i5d10.1007_s40271-020-00423-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Feasibility of Measuring Preferences for Chemotherapy Among Early-Stage Breast Cancer Survivors Using a Direct Rank Ordering Multicriteria Decision Analysis Versus a Time Trade-Off

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Panattoni

    (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

  • Charles E. Phelps

    (University of Rochester)

  • Tracy A. Lieu

    (Kaiser Permanente Northern California)

  • Stacey Alexeeff

    (Kaiser Permanente Northern California)

  • Suzanne O’Neill

    (Georgetown University Medical Center
    Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center)

  • Jeanne S. Mandelblatt

    (Georgetown University Medical Center
    Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center)

  • Scott D. Ramsey

    (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

Abstract

Objectives Chemotherapy is increasingly a preference-based choice among women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a promising but underutilized method to facilitate shared decision making. We explored the feasibility of conducting an MCDA using direct rank ordering versus a time trade-off (TTO) to assess chemotherapy choice in a large population-based sample. Methods We surveyed 904 early-stage breast cancer survivors who were within 5 years of diagnosis and reported to the Western Washington State Cancer System and Kaiser Permanente Northern California registries. Direct rank ordering of 11 criteria and TTO surveys were conducted from September 2015 to July 2016; clinical data were obtained from registries or medical records. Multivariable regressions estimated post hoc associations between the MCDA, TTO, and self-reported chemotherapy receipt, considering covariates. Results Survivors ranged in age from 25 to 74 years and 73.9% had stage I tumors. The response rate for the rank ordering was 81.0%; TTO score was 94.2%. A one-standard deviation increase in the difference between the chemotherapy and no chemotherapy MCDA scores was associated with a 75.1% (95% confidence interval 43.9–109.7%; p

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Panattoni & Charles E. Phelps & Tracy A. Lieu & Stacey Alexeeff & Suzanne O’Neill & Jeanne S. Mandelblatt & Scott D. Ramsey, 2020. "Feasibility of Measuring Preferences for Chemotherapy Among Early-Stage Breast Cancer Survivors Using a Direct Rank Ordering Multicriteria Decision Analysis Versus a Time Trade-Off," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(5), pages 557-566, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00423-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00423-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00423-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/s40271-020-00423-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. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    2. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    3. P. Thokala & A. Duenas, 2012. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment," Post-Print hal-00800398, HAL.
    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. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    2. Beynon, Malcolm J. & Wells, Peter, 2008. "The lean improvement of the chemical emissions of motor vehicles based on preference ranking: A PROMETHEE uncertainty analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 384-394, June.
    3. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    4. Richard M. Anderson & Robert Clemen, 2013. "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 121-134, June.
    5. Richard M. Anderson & Benjamin F. Hobbs, 2002. "Using a Bayesian Approach to Quantify Scale Compatibility Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(12), pages 1555-1568, December.
    6. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Sabio, Pilar, 2013. "Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 397-405.
    7. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    8. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2016. "The CAR Method for Using Preference Strength in Multi-criteria Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 775-797, July.
    9. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    10. Eduarda Asfora Frej & Adiel Teixeira Almeida & Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa, 2019. "Using data visualization for ranking alternatives with partial information and interactive tradeoff elicitation," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 909-931, December.
    11. Renaud Caillet, 2003. "Analyse multicritère : Étude de comparaison des méthodes existantes en vue d'une application en analyse de cycle de vie," CIRANO Working Papers 2003s-53, CIRANO.
    12. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.
    13. James G. Dolan & Emily Boohaker & Jeroan Allison & Thomas F. Imperiale, 2014. "Can Streamlined Multicriteria Decision Analysis Be Used to Implement Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 746-755, August.
    14. Yang, Chih-Hao & Lee, Kuen-Chang, 2020. "Developing a strategy map for forensic accounting with fraud risk management: An integrated balanced scorecard-based decision model," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    15. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Gilberto Montibeller, 2015. "Probability Elicitation Under Severe Time Pressure: A Rank‐Based Method," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1317-1335, July.
    16. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Alaja, Susanna, 2008. "The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 556-569, December.
    17. Qingpeng Cao & Moses Olabhele Esangbedo & Sijun Bai & Caroline Olufunke Esangbedo, 2019. "Grey SWARA-FUCOM Weighting Method for Contractor Selection MCDM Problem: A Case Study of Floating Solar Panel Energy System Installation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-30, June.
    18. A Jessop, 2011. "Using imprecise estimates for weights," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1048-1055, June.
    19. Aron Larsson & Mona Riabacke & Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2015. "Cardinal and Rank Ordering of Criteria — Addressing Prescription within Weight Elicitation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1299-1330, November.
    20. Doyle, John R. & Green, Rodney H. & Bottomley, Paul A., 1997. "Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 65-72, April.

    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:13:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00423-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.