Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 5/2017

Open Access 01-10-2017 | Systematic Review

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

Authors: Daniela R. Bien, Marion Danner, Vera Vennedey, Daniele Civello, Silvia M. Evers, Mickaël Hiligsmann

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
3.
go back to reference Taylor R, Drummond M, Salkeld G, Sullivan S. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ. 2004;329(7472):972–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Taylor R, Drummond M, Salkeld G, Sullivan S. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ. 2004;329(7472):972–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Sullivan M. The new subjective medicine: taking the patient’s point of view on health care and health. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(7):1595–604.CrossRefPubMed Sullivan M. The new subjective medicine: taking the patient’s point of view on health care and health. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(7):1595–604.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.CrossRefPubMed Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRefPubMed Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Carson RT, Louviere JJ. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Res Econ. 2011;49(4):539–59.CrossRef Carson RT, Louviere JJ. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Res Econ. 2011;49(4):539–59.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Allgemeine Methoden. Köln: Institut für Qualitität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen; 2014. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Allgemeine Methoden. Köln: Institut für Qualitität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen; 2014.
12.
go back to reference Clark MD, Determan D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.CrossRefPubMed Clark MD, Determan D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, Neuland CY, Whang JM, McMurry-Heath M, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–93.CrossRefPubMed Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, Neuland CY, Whang JM, McMurry-Heath M, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–93.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(Pt 4):527–46.CrossRefPubMed Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(Pt 4):527–46.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Schaarschmidt M-L, Schmieder A, Umar N, Terris D, Goebeler M, Goerdt S, et al. Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: process characteristics can outweigh outcome attributes. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147(11):1285–94.CrossRefPubMed Schaarschmidt M-L, Schmieder A, Umar N, Terris D, Goebeler M, Goerdt S, et al. Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: process characteristics can outweigh outcome attributes. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147(11):1285–94.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318(7182):527–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318(7182):527–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
19.
go back to reference Luengo-Fernandez R, Leal J, Gray A, Sullivan R. Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: a population-based cost analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(12):1165–74.CrossRefPubMed Luengo-Fernandez R, Leal J, Gray A, Sullivan R. Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: a population-based cost analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(12):1165–74.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Hong WK, Bast JRC Jr, Hait WN, Kufe DW, Pollock RE, Weichselbaum RR, et al. Cardinal manifestations of cancer. In: Hong WK, Blast RC, Hait WN, Kufe DW, Pollock RE, Weichselbaum RR, Holland JF, Frei III E, editors. Holland-Frei cancer medicine. 8th ed. Shelton: People’s Medical Publishing House-USA; 2010. p. 1–3. Hong WK, Bast JRC Jr, Hait WN, Kufe DW, Pollock RE, Weichselbaum RR, et al. Cardinal manifestations of cancer. In: Hong WK, Blast RC, Hait WN, Kufe DW, Pollock RE, Weichselbaum RR, Holland JF, Frei III E, editors. Holland-Frei cancer medicine. 8th ed. Shelton: People’s Medical Publishing House-USA; 2010. p. 1–3.
22.
go back to reference de Bekker-Grob E, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.CrossRefPubMed de Bekker-Grob E, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Phillips KA, Van Bebber S, Marshall D, Walsh J, Thabane L. A review of studies examining stated preferences for cancer screening. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006;3(3):A75.PubMedPubMedCentral Phillips KA, Van Bebber S, Marshall D, Walsh J, Thabane L. A review of studies examining stated preferences for cancer screening. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006;3(3):A75.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Mansfield C, Tangka FKL, Ekwueme DU, Lee Smith J, Guy GP Jr, Li C, et al. Stated preference for cancer screening: a systematic review of the literature, 1990–2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;13:E27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mansfield C, Tangka FKL, Ekwueme DU, Lee Smith J, Guy GP Jr, Li C, et al. Stated preference for cancer screening: a systematic review of the literature, 1990–2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;13:E27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9, W64. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9, W64.
27.
go back to reference Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–9.CrossRefPubMed Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–9.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Joy SM, Little E, Maruthur NM, Purnell TS, Bridges JFP. Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(10):877–92.CrossRefPubMed Joy SM, Little E, Maruthur NM, Purnell TS, Bridges JFP. Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(10):877–92.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–15.CrossRefPubMed Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–15.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Bridges JF, Mohamed AF, Finnern HW, Woehl A, Hauber AB. Patients’ preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysis. Lung Cancer. 2012;77(1):224–31.CrossRefPubMed Bridges JF, Mohamed AF, Finnern HW, Woehl A, Hauber AB. Patients’ preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysis. Lung Cancer. 2012;77(1):224–31.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Goodall S, King M, Ewing J, Smith N, Kenny P. Preferences for support services among adolescents and young adults with cancer or a blood disorder: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2012;107(2):304–11.CrossRefPubMed Goodall S, King M, Ewing J, Smith N, Kenny P. Preferences for support services among adolescents and young adults with cancer or a blood disorder: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2012;107(2):304–11.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Sung L, Alibhai SM, Ethier M-C, Teuffel O, Cheng S, Fisman D, et al. Discrete choice experiment produced estimates of acceptable risks of therapeutic options in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):627–34.CrossRefPubMed Sung L, Alibhai SM, Ethier M-C, Teuffel O, Cheng S, Fisman D, et al. Discrete choice experiment produced estimates of acceptable risks of therapeutic options in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):627–34.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Wong MK, Mohamed AF, Hauber AB, Yang J-C, Liu Z, Rogerio J, et al. Patients rank toxicity against progression free survival in second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Med Econ. 2012;15(6):1139–48.CrossRefPubMed Wong MK, Mohamed AF, Hauber AB, Yang J-C, Liu Z, Rogerio J, et al. Patients rank toxicity against progression free survival in second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Med Econ. 2012;15(6):1139–48.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Tinelli M, Ozolins M, Bath-Hextall F, Williams HC. What determines patient preferences for treating low risk basal cell carcinoma when comparing surgery vs imiquimod? A discrete choice experiment survey from the SINS trial. BMC Dermatol. 2012;12(1):1.CrossRef Tinelli M, Ozolins M, Bath-Hextall F, Williams HC. What determines patient preferences for treating low risk basal cell carcinoma when comparing surgery vs imiquimod? A discrete choice experiment survey from the SINS trial. BMC Dermatol. 2012;12(1):1.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Park M-H, Jo C, Bae EY, Lee E-K. A comparison of preferences of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma between the patient group and health care professional group in South Korea. Value Health. 2012;15(6):933–9.CrossRefPubMed Park M-H, Jo C, Bae EY, Lee E-K. A comparison of preferences of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma between the patient group and health care professional group in South Korea. Value Health. 2012;15(6):933–9.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Regier DA, Diorio C, Ethier M-C, Alli A, Alexander S, Boydell KM, et al. Discrete choice experiment to evaluate factors that influence preferences for antibiotic prophylaxis in pediatric oncology. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47470.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Regier DA, Diorio C, Ethier M-C, Alli A, Alexander S, Boydell KM, et al. Discrete choice experiment to evaluate factors that influence preferences for antibiotic prophylaxis in pediatric oncology. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47470.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
go back to reference Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Coombs J, Sirulnik A, Palacios D, Scherzer N. Patient preferences for reducing toxicities of treatments for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Patient Prefer Adher. 2011;5:307–14.CrossRef Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Coombs J, Sirulnik A, Palacios D, Scherzer N. Patient preferences for reducing toxicities of treatments for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Patient Prefer Adher. 2011;5:307–14.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Miller PJ, Balu S, Buchner D, Walker MS, Stepanski EJ, Schwartzberg LS. Willingness to pay to prevent chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting among patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. J Med Econ. 2013;16(10):1179–89.CrossRefPubMed Miller PJ, Balu S, Buchner D, Walker MS, Stepanski EJ, Schwartzberg LS. Willingness to pay to prevent chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting among patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. J Med Econ. 2013;16(10):1179–89.CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Najafzadeh M, Johnston KM, Peacock SJ, Connors JM, Marra MA, Lynd LD, et al. Genomic testing to determine drug response: measuring preferences of the public and patients using Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:454.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Najafzadeh M, Johnston KM, Peacock SJ, Connors JM, Marra MA, Lynd LD, et al. Genomic testing to determine drug response: measuring preferences of the public and patients using Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:454.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
go back to reference Smith ML, White CB, Railey E, Sledge GW Jr. Examining and predicting drug preferences of patients with metastatic breast cancer: using conjoint analysis to examine attributes of paclitaxel and capecitabine. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145(1):83–9.CrossRefPubMed Smith ML, White CB, Railey E, Sledge GW Jr. Examining and predicting drug preferences of patients with metastatic breast cancer: using conjoint analysis to examine attributes of paclitaxel and capecitabine. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145(1):83–9.CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Johnson P, Bancroft T, Barron R, Legg J, Li X, Watson H, et al. Discrete choice experiment to estimate breast cancer patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Value Health. 2014;17(4):380–9.CrossRefPubMed Johnson P, Bancroft T, Barron R, Legg J, Li X, Watson H, et al. Discrete choice experiment to estimate breast cancer patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Value Health. 2014;17(4):380–9.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Havrilesky LJ, Alvarez Secord A, Ehrisman JA, Berchuck A, Valea FA, Lee PS, et al. Patient preferences in advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(23):3651–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Havrilesky LJ, Alvarez Secord A, Ehrisman JA, Berchuck A, Valea FA, Lee PS, et al. Patient preferences in advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(23):3651–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
go back to reference Lalla D, Carlton R, Santos E, Bramley T, D’Souza A. Willingness to pay to avoid metastatic breast cancer treatment side effects: results from a conjoint analysis. Springerplus. 2014;3:350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lalla D, Carlton R, Santos E, Bramley T, D’Souza A. Willingness to pay to avoid metastatic breast cancer treatment side effects: results from a conjoint analysis. Springerplus. 2014;3:350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
go back to reference Mohamed MAF, Hauber AB, Neary MP. Patient benefit-risk preferences for targeted agents in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(11):977–88.CrossRefPubMed Mohamed MAF, Hauber AB, Neary MP. Patient benefit-risk preferences for targeted agents in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(11):977–88.CrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference daCosta DiBonaventura M, Copher R, Basurto E, Faria C, Lorenzo R. Patient preferences and treatment adherence among women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2014;7(7):386–96.PubMedPubMedCentral daCosta DiBonaventura M, Copher R, Basurto E, Faria C, Lorenzo R. Patient preferences and treatment adherence among women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2014;7(7):386–96.PubMedPubMedCentral
47.
go back to reference Qian Y, Arellano J, Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Gonzalez JM, Hechmati G, et al. Patient, caregiver, and nurse preferences for treatments for bone metastases from solid tumors. Patient. 2016;9(4):323–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Qian Y, Arellano J, Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Gonzalez JM, Hechmati G, et al. Patient, caregiver, and nurse preferences for treatments for bone metastases from solid tumors. Patient. 2016;9(4):323–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
go back to reference Mühlbacher AC, Bethge S. Patients’ preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(6):657–70.CrossRefPubMed Mühlbacher AC, Bethge S. Patients’ preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(6):657–70.CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference Kimman ML, Dellaert BG, Boersma LJ, Lambin P, Dirksen CD. Follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: one strategy fits all? An investigation of patient preferences using a discrete choice experiment. Acta Oncol. 2010;49(3):328–37.CrossRefPubMed Kimman ML, Dellaert BG, Boersma LJ, Lambin P, Dirksen CD. Follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: one strategy fits all? An investigation of patient preferences using a discrete choice experiment. Acta Oncol. 2010;49(3):328–37.CrossRefPubMed
50.
go back to reference Thrumurthy S, Morris J, Mughal M, Ward J. Discrete-choice preference comparison between patients and doctors for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2011;98(8):1124–31.CrossRefPubMed Thrumurthy S, Morris J, Mughal M, Ward J. Discrete-choice preference comparison between patients and doctors for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2011;98(8):1124–31.CrossRefPubMed
51.
go back to reference Hechmati G, Hauber AB, Arellano J, Mohamed AF, Qian Y, Gatta F, et al. Patients’ preferences for bone metastases treatments in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(1):21–8.CrossRefPubMed Hechmati G, Hauber AB, Arellano J, Mohamed AF, Qian Y, Gatta F, et al. Patients’ preferences for bone metastases treatments in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(1):21–8.CrossRefPubMed
52.
go back to reference de Bekker-Grob EW, Niers EJ, van Lanschot JJB, Steyerberg EW, Wijnhoven BP. Patients’ preferences for surgical management of esophageal cancer: a discrete choice experiment. World J Surg. 2015;39(10):2492–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral de Bekker-Grob EW, Niers EJ, van Lanschot JJB, Steyerberg EW, Wijnhoven BP. Patients’ preferences for surgical management of esophageal cancer: a discrete choice experiment. World J Surg. 2015;39(10):2492–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
go back to reference Martin I, Schaarschmidt ML, Glocker A, Herr R, Schmieder A, Goerdt S, et al. Patient preferences for treatment of basal cell carcinoma: importance of cure and cosmetic outcome. Acta Derm Venereol. 2016;96(3):355–60.CrossRefPubMed Martin I, Schaarschmidt ML, Glocker A, Herr R, Schmieder A, Goerdt S, et al. Patient preferences for treatment of basal cell carcinoma: importance of cure and cosmetic outcome. Acta Derm Venereol. 2016;96(3):355–60.CrossRefPubMed
54.
go back to reference Mohamed AF, González JM, Fairchild A. Patient benefit-risk tradeoffs for radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer treatments. J Thyroid Res. 2015;2015:438235.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mohamed AF, González JM, Fairchild A. Patient benefit-risk tradeoffs for radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer treatments. J Thyroid Res. 2015;2015:438235.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
go back to reference de Bekker-Grob E, Bliemer M, Donkers B, Essink-Bot M-L, Korfage I, Roobol M, et al. Patients’ and urologists’ preferences for prostate cancer treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(3):633–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral de Bekker-Grob E, Bliemer M, Donkers B, Essink-Bot M-L, Korfage I, Roobol M, et al. Patients’ and urologists’ preferences for prostate cancer treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(3):633–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
go back to reference Damen TH, de Bekker-Grob EW, Mureau MA, Menke-Pluijmers MB, Seynaeve C, Hofer SO, et al. Patients’ preferences for breast reconstruction: a discrete choice experiment. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(1):75–83.CrossRefPubMed Damen TH, de Bekker-Grob EW, Mureau MA, Menke-Pluijmers MB, Seynaeve C, Hofer SO, et al. Patients’ preferences for breast reconstruction: a discrete choice experiment. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(1):75–83.CrossRefPubMed
57.
go back to reference Ngorsuraches S, Thongkeaw K. Patients’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treatments after failure of standard treatments. Springerplus. 2015;4:674.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ngorsuraches S, Thongkeaw K. Patients’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treatments after failure of standard treatments. Springerplus. 2015;4:674.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
go back to reference Bessen T, Chen G, Street J, Eliott J, Karnon J, Keefe D, et al. What sort of follow-up services would Australian breast cancer survivors prefer if we could no longer offer long-term specialist-based care? A discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(4):859–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bessen T, Chen G, Street J, Eliott J, Karnon J, Keefe D, et al. What sort of follow-up services would Australian breast cancer survivors prefer if we could no longer offer long-term specialist-based care? A discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(4):859–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments
Authors
Daniela R. Bien
Marion Danner
Vera Vennedey
Daniele Civello
Silvia M. Evers
Mickaël Hiligsmann
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 5/2017 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine