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

Daniela R. Bien, Marion Danner, Vera Vennedey, Daniele Civello, Silvia M. Evers and Mickaël Hiligsmann ()
Additional contact information
Daniela R. Bien: Maastricht University
Marion Danner: University of Cologne
Vera Vennedey: University of Cologne
Daniele Civello: University of Cologne
Silvia M. Evers: Maastricht University
Mickaël Hiligsmann: Maastricht University

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2017, vol. 10, issue 5, No 5, 553-565

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: Conjoint Analysis; Discrete Choice Experiment; Process Attribute; Attribute Identification; Outcome Attribute (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0235-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().