11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Discrete choice experiments in health care.

            Mandy Ryan (2004)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How to write a systematic review.

              Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the combination of the best available research evidence with clinical experience and patient needs. The concept of EBM as a part of clinical decision making has become increasingly popular over the last decade. In the hierarchy of studies meta-analysis and systematic reviews occupy the highest levels. A systematic review of a clinical question can be performed by following a relatively standard form. These techniques as described here can be performed without formal training. Systematic reviews conducted in this fashion can be used as a higher form of current concepts or as review articles and replace the traditional expert opinion narrative review.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +31 43 38 82 219 , m.hiligsmann@maastrichtuniversity.nl
                Journal
                Patient
                Patient
                The Patient
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1178-1653
                1178-1661
                31 March 2017
                31 March 2017
                2017
                : 10
                : 5
                : 553-565
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0481 6099, GRID grid.5012.6, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, , Maastricht University, ; Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8580 3777, GRID grid.6190.e, Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, , University of Cologne, ; Cologne, Germany
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0481 6099, GRID grid.5012.6, Department of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), , Maastricht University, ; PO Box 6161, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
                Article
                235
                10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y
                5605613
                28364387
                37e73ea7-6f67-4cd6-ba51-b0622474acab
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer International Publishing AG 2017

                Comments

                Comment on this article