IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i4d10.1007_s40271-021-00567-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Qualitative Research Informing a Preference Study on Selecting Cannabis for Cancer Survivor Symptom Management: Design of a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Colene Bentley

    (BC Cancer Research Institute
    Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control)

  • Sara Izadi-Najafabadi

    (BC Cancer Research Institute
    Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control)

  • Adam Raymakers

    (BC Cancer Research Institute
    Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control
    Simon Fraser University)

  • Helen McTaggart-Cowan

    (BC Cancer Research Institute
    Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control
    Simon Fraser University)

Abstract

Introduction The legalization of recreational cannabis use can enable cancer survivors to manage aspects of their care with cannabinoids without medical authorization or stigmatization. However, the absence of medical guidance—from the scientific literature or the healthcare system—makes it difficult for survivors to reach informed decisions about their care. Objective This article outlines the qualitative research undertaken to design a discrete choice experiment (DCE) aimed at understanding Canadian cancer survivors’ preferences for managing their cancer symptoms with cannabis in this complex socio-medical context. Methods In this study, we drew on previously published qualitative research (a literature review and interviews with cancer survivors) and the theory of planned behavior, holding weekly team meetings to review the qualitative data and identify initial attributes associated with medicinal cannabis consumption to inform the DCE design. The initial attributes were further assessed to determine whether they were sensitive to the Canadian context, modifiable to produce levels and trade-offs, and amenable to policy intervention, in order to form the DCE choice sets. The choice sets were tested via think-aloud exercises with members of the general population and included debriefing interviews. Think-aloud participants were recruited from patient groups and previous studies. Results Based on our review of the interview study, we identified the following attributes associated with selecting medicinal cannabis: effectiveness; chance of side effects; support from family, friends, and/or physicians; cost; and availability. Ability to perform everyday activities was added and monthly out-of-pocket cost was refined to render the DCE realistic to cancer survivors in the Canadian context. Revisions to the DCE instructions, terminology, and cost levels were made based on results from the think-aloud exercises (n = 10). Conclusions This qualitative study outlines the preference evidence collected regarding Canadian cancer survivors’ decisions to manage their symptoms with cannabis to inform a DCE quantitative survey. It contributes to transparent reporting of qualitative work in DCE development and to understanding cancer survivors’ preferences regarding medicinal cannabis consumption under legalization.

Suggested Citation

  • Colene Bentley & Sara Izadi-Najafabadi & Adam Raymakers & Helen McTaggart-Cowan, 2022. "Qualitative Research Informing a Preference Study on Selecting Cannabis for Cancer Survivor Symptom Management: Design of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(4), pages 497-507, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00567-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00567-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00567-3
    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/s40271-021-00567-3?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. Ryan, Mandy, 1999. "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 535-546, February.
    2. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2017. "The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 298-313, April.
    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. Rod Mccoll & Yann Truong & Antonella La Rocca, 2019. "Service guarantees as a base for positioning in B2B," Post-Print hal-02326105, HAL.
    2. Magda Aguiar & Mark Harrison & Sarah Munro & Tiasha Burch & K. Julia Kaal & Marie Hudson & Nick Bansback & Tracey-Lea Laba, 2021. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments Using a Patient-Oriented Approach," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 389-397, July.
    3. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    4. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.
    5. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    7. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    8. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Astrid Kiil & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Soccer Attendees’ Preferences for Facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 179-199, April.
    9. Merle Gijsbers & Iris Elise Keizer & Stephanie Else Schouten & Janneke Louise Trompert & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Janine Astrid Til, 2021. "Public Preferences in Priority Setting when Admitting Patients to the ICU During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Pilot Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 331-338, May.
    10. Mooney, Gavin, 2005. "Communitarian claims and community capabilities: furthering priority setting?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 247-255, January.
    11. Kettlewell, Nathan & Walker, Matthew J. & Yoo, Hong Il, 2024. "Alternative Models of Preference Heterogeneity for Elicited Choice Probabilities," IZA Discussion Papers 16821, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Poulos, Christine & Yang, Jui-Chen & Levin, Carol & Van Minh, Hoang & Giang, Kim Bao & Nguyen, Diep, 2011. "Mothers' preferences and willingness to pay for HPV vaccines in Vinh Long Province, Vietnam," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 226-234, July.
    13. Mandy Ryan & Angela Bate, 2001. "Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 59-63.
    14. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.
    15. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    16. Jackson, Louise & Al-Janabi, Hareth & Roberts, Tracy & Ross, Jonthan, 2021. "Exploring young people's preferences for STI screening in the UK: A qualitative study and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    17. Brent Opmeer & Corianne Borgie & Ben Mol & Patrick Bossuyt, 2010. "Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, March.
    18. Kim, Doha & Song, Yeosol & Kim, Songyie & Lee, Sewang & Wu, Yanqin & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Daeho, 2023. "How should the results of artificial intelligence be explained to users? - Research on consumer preferences in user-centered explainable artificial intelligence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    19. Anna Alberini, 2017. "Measuring the economic value of the effects of chemicals on ecological systems and human health," OECD Environment Working Papers 116, OECD Publishing.
    20. Simon Deeming & Kim Edmunds & Alice Knight & Andrew Searles & Anthony P. Shakeshaft & Christopher M. Doran, 2022. "A Benefit-Cost Analysis of BackTrack, a Multi-Component, Community-Based Intervention for High-Risk Young People in a Rural Australian Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-12, August.

    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:15:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00567-3. 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.