A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments

Hannah Collacott (), Vikas Soekhai (), Caitlin Thomas (), Anne Brooks (), Ella Brookes (), Rachel Lo (), Sarah Mulnick () and Sebastian Heidenreich ()
Additional contact information
Hannah Collacott: Evidera
Vikas Soekhai: Erasmus University
Caitlin Thomas: Evidera
Anne Brooks: Evidera
Ella Brookes: Evidera
Rachel Lo: Evidera
Sarah Mulnick: Evidera
Sebastian Heidenreich: Evidera

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2021, vol. 14, issue 6, No 7, 775-790

Abstract: Abstract Background As the number and type of cancer treatments available rises and patients live with the consequences of their disease and treatments for longer, understanding preferences for cancer care can help inform decisions about optimal treatment development, access, and care provision. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used as a tool to elicit stakeholder preferences; however, their implementation in oncology may be challenging if burdensome trade-offs (e.g. length of life versus quality of life) are involved and/or target populations are small. Objectives The aim of this review was to characterise DCEs relating to cancer treatments that were conducted between 1990 and March 2020. Data Sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant studies. Study Eligibility Criteria Studies were included if they implemented a DCE and reported outcomes of interest (i.e. quantitative outputs on participants’ preferences for cancer treatments), but were excluded if they were not focused on pharmacological, radiological or surgical treatments (e.g. cancer screening or counselling services), were non-English, or were a secondary analysis of an included study. Analysis Methods Analysis followed a narrative synthesis, and quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, including rankings of attribute importance. Result Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. The number of published DCEs relating to oncology grew over the review period. Studies were conducted in a range of indications (n = 19), most commonly breast (n =10, 13%) and prostate (n = 9, 11%) cancer, and most studies elicited preferences of patients (n = 59, 75%). Across reviewed studies, survival attributes were commonly ranked as most important, with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) ranked most important in 58% and 28% of models, respectively. Preferences varied between stakeholder groups, with patients and clinicians placing greater importance on survival outcomes, and general population samples valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite the emphasis of guidelines on the importance of using qualitative research to inform attribute selection and DCE designs, reporting on instrument development was mixed. Limitations No formal assessment of bias was conducted, with the scope of the paper instead providing a descriptive characterisation. The review only included DCEs relating to cancer treatments, and no insight is provided into other health technologies such as cancer screening. Only DCEs were included. Conclusions and Implications Although there was variation in attribute importance between responder types, survival attributes were consistently ranked as important by both patients and clinicians. Observed challenges included the risk of attribute dominance for survival outcomes, limited sample sizes in some indications, and a lack of reporting about instrument development processes. Protocol Registration PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020184232.

Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00520-4 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:14:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00520-4

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

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00520-4

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 ().