IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v9y2016i4d10.1007_s40271-015-0158-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient, Caregiver, and Nurse Preferences for Treatments for Bone Metastases from Solid Tumors

Author

Listed:
  • Yi Qian

    (Amgen Inc.)

  • Jorge Arellano

    (Amgen Inc.)

  • A. Brett Hauber

    (RTI Health Solutions)

  • Ateesha F. Mohamed

    (RTI Health Solutions
    Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.)

  • Juan Marcos Gonzalez

    (RTI Health Solutions)

  • Guy Hechmati

    (Amgen (Europe) GmbH)

  • Francesca Gatta

    (Amgen (Europe) GmbH)

  • Stacey Harrelson

    (Carolina Urologic Research Center)

  • Cynthia Campbell-Baird

    (Pennsylvania State University Milton S. Hershey Medical Center)

Abstract

Background Bone-targeted agents (BTAs) used for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) associated with metastatic bone disease possess different attributes that factor into treatment decisions. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate preferences of patients, caregivers, and nurses for features of BTAs used to prevent SREs in patients with a self-reported physician diagnosis of bone metastasis from solid tumors. Methods Patients (n = 187), primary caregivers (n = 197), or nurses (n = 196) completed a web-enabled discrete-choice experiment (10-question survey) in which they chose between pairs of hypothetical profiles of BTAs. Each profile was defined by six key treatment attributes, including efficacy and safety (two each) and route/frequency of administration and cost (one each). The relative importance of treatment attributes and levels was estimated. Results The most important treatment attribute for patients and nurses was out-of-pocket cost, and for caregivers, treatment-related risk of renal impairment. Risk of renal impairment was the second most important attribute for patients and nurses, while time until first SRE was the third most important attribute for all respondents. For nurses, risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw was least important, and for patients and caregivers, mode of administration was least important. Limitations Respondents considered hypothetical medications; therefore, their decisions may not have the same consequences as actual decisions. Conclusions The perspectives of patients, caregivers, and nurses are integral when making treatment decisions about BTAs to prevent SREs associated with solid tumors. Identifying the relative importance of attributes of BTAs will aid in the proper selection of therapy in this setting, which may improve patient outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Yi Qian & Jorge Arellano & A. Brett Hauber & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Juan Marcos Gonzalez & Guy Hechmati & Francesca Gatta & Stacey Harrelson & Cynthia Campbell-Baird, 2016. "Patient, Caregiver, and Nurse Preferences for Treatments for Bone Metastases from Solid Tumors," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 323-333, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:9:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-015-0158-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-015-0158-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-015-0158-4
    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/s40271-015-0158-4?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. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    3. F. Reed Johnson & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Semra Özdemir & Deborah A. Marshall & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2011. "How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 323-330, March.
    4. Axel Mühlbacher & Christin Juhnke, 2013. "Patient Preferences Versus Physicians’ Judgement: Does it Make a Difference in Healthcare Decision Making?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 163-180, June.
    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. Juan Marcos Gonzalez & Marco Boeri, 2021. "The Impact of the Risk Functional Form Assumptions on Maximum Acceptable Risk Measures," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(6), pages 827-836, November.

    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. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    3. Axel Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Johnson, 2015. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    10. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    11. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    12. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    13. Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009. "Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Working Papers in Economics 370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    14. Clark, Andrew E. & Senik, Claudia & Yamada, Katsunori, 2017. "When experienced and decision utility concur: The case of income comparisons," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-9.
    15. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    16. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    17. Lorenzo Masiero & Juan L. Nicolau, 2012. "Price Sensitivity to Tourism Activities: Looking for Determinant Factors," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(4), pages 675-689, August.
    18. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    19. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    20. Ida, Takanori & Goto, Rei & Takahashi, Yuko & Nishimura, Shuzo, 2011. "Can economic-psychological parameters predict successful smoking cessation?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 285-295, May.

    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:9:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-015-0158-4. 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.