Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Prostate Cancer | Research article

Assigning value to preparation for prostate cancer decision making: a willingness to pay analysis

Authors: Leslie S. Wilson, Traci M. Blonquist, Fangxin Hong, Barbara Halpenny, Seth Wolpin, Peter Chang, Christopher P. Filson, Viraj A. Master, Martin G. Sanda, Gary W. Chien, Randy A. Jones, Tracey L. Krupski, Donna L. Berry

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) is a web-based decision support system for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer that has demonstrated efficacy in reducing decisional conflict. Our objective was to estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) for men’s decisional preparation activities.

Methods

In a multicenter, randomized trial of P3P, usual care group participants received typical preparation for decision making plus referral to publicly-available, educational websites. Intervention group participants received the same, plus online P3P educational media specific to the user’s personal preferences and values, and a communication coaching component tailored to race\ethnicity, age and language. WTP data were collected one week after physician consultation. An iterative bidding direct contingent valuation survey format was used, randomly assigning participants to high or low starting values (SV). Tobit models were used to explore associations between SV-adjusted WTP and age, education, marital and work-status, insurance, decision-control preference and decision-making stage.

Results

Of 392 participants enrolled, 141 P3P and 107 usual care (UC) provided a WTP value. Men were willing to pay a median $25 (IQR $10–100) for P3P in addition to usual care preparation materials. In the final multivariable tobit regression model, SV, marital status, stage of decision making and income were significantly associated with WTP for P3P. Decision control preference was considered marginally significant (p = 0.11). Men were WTP a median $30 (IQR $10–$200) for usual care material alone. In the final multivariable model, SV, education, and stage of decision making were significantly associated with WTP in usual care.

Conclusion

WTP was similar for UC and for the addition of P3P to UC decision preparation. The WTP values were associated with demographic and preference variables. Findings can help focus decision support on future patients who would benefit most: those without strong support systems, at earlier stages of decision making, and open to a shared-decision style.

Trial registration

NCT NCT01844999. Registered May 3, 2013.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wang EH, Gross CP, Tilburt JC, Yu JB, Nguyen PL, Smaldone MC, Shah ND, Abouassally R, Sun M, Kim SP. Shared decision making and use of decision AIDS for localized prostate cancer : perceptions from radiation oncologists and urologists. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):792–9.CrossRef Wang EH, Gross CP, Tilburt JC, Yu JB, Nguyen PL, Smaldone MC, Shah ND, Abouassally R, Sun M, Kim SP. Shared decision making and use of decision AIDS for localized prostate cancer : perceptions from radiation oncologists and urologists. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):792–9.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Makarov DV, Chrouser K, Gore JL, Maranchie J, Neilsen ME, Saigal C, Tessier C, Fagerlin A. AUA white paper on implementation of shared decision making into urological practice. Urology Practice. 2016;3(5):355–63.CrossRef Makarov DV, Chrouser K, Gore JL, Maranchie J, Neilsen ME, Saigal C, Tessier C, Fagerlin A. AUA white paper on implementation of shared decision making into urological practice. Urology Practice. 2016;3(5):355–63.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:Cd001431.PubMed Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:Cd001431.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Berry DL, Halpenny B, Hong F, Wolpin S, Lober WB, Russell KJ, Ellis WJ, Govindarajulu U, Bosco J, Davison BJ, et al. The personal patient profile-prostate decision support for men with localized prostate cancer: a multi-center randomized trial. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(7):1012–21.CrossRef Berry DL, Halpenny B, Hong F, Wolpin S, Lober WB, Russell KJ, Ellis WJ, Govindarajulu U, Bosco J, Davison BJ, et al. The personal patient profile-prostate decision support for men with localized prostate cancer: a multi-center randomized trial. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(7):1012–21.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Berry DL, Hong F, Blonquist TM, Halpenny B, Filson CP, Master VA, Sanda MG, Chang P, Chien GW, Jones RA, et al. Decision support with the personal patient profile-prostate: a multi-center randomized trial. J Urol. 2018;199:89–97.CrossRef Berry DL, Hong F, Blonquist TM, Halpenny B, Filson CP, Master VA, Sanda MG, Chang P, Chien GW, Jones RA, et al. Decision support with the personal patient profile-prostate: a multi-center randomized trial. J Urol. 2018;199:89–97.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Trenaman L, Bryan S, Bansback N. The cost-effectiveness of patient decision aids: A systematic review. Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2014;2(4):251–7. Trenaman L, Bryan S, Bansback N. The cost-effectiveness of patient decision aids: A systematic review. Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2014;2(4):251–7.
7.
go back to reference Dalmau-Matarrodona D. Alternative approaches to obtain optimal bid values in contingent valuation studies and to model protest zeros: estimating the determinants for individuals' willingness to pay for home care services in day case surgery. Health Econ. 2001;10:101–18.CrossRef Dalmau-Matarrodona D. Alternative approaches to obtain optimal bid values in contingent valuation studies and to model protest zeros: estimating the determinants for individuals' willingness to pay for home care services in day case surgery. Health Econ. 2001;10:101–18.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Eastaugh SR. Willingness to pay in treatment of bleeding disorders. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(2):706–10.CrossRef Eastaugh SR. Willingness to pay in treatment of bleeding disorders. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(2):706–10.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Johannesson M, Johannsson P, Kristrom B, Borgquist L, Jonsson B. Willingness to pay for lipid lowering: a health production function approach. Appl Econ. 2006;25(8):1023–31.CrossRef Johannesson M, Johannsson P, Kristrom B, Borgquist L, Jonsson B. Willingness to pay for lipid lowering: a health production function approach. Appl Econ. 2006;25(8):1023–31.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference O'Brien MA, Charles C, Lovrics P, Wright FC, Whelan T, Simunovic M, Kennedy E, Grunfeld E. Enablers and barriers to using patient decision aids in early stage breast cancer consultations: a qualitative study of surgeons’ views. Implementation science : IS. 2014;9:174.CrossRef O'Brien MA, Charles C, Lovrics P, Wright FC, Whelan T, Simunovic M, Kennedy E, Grunfeld E. Enablers and barriers to using patient decision aids in early stage breast cancer consultations: a qualitative study of surgeons’ views. Implementation science : IS. 2014;9:174.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference O'Brien B, Viramontes JL. Willingness to pay: a valid and reliable measure of health state preference? Med Decis Mak. 1994;14:289–97.CrossRef O'Brien B, Viramontes JL. Willingness to pay: a valid and reliable measure of health state preference? Med Decis Mak. 1994;14:289–97.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Cuypers M, Lamers RED, Kil PJM, van de Poll-Franse LV, de Vries M. Impact of a web-based prostate cancer treatment decision aid on patient-reported decision process parameters: results from the prostate Cancer patient centered care trial. Support Care Cancer. 2018. Cuypers M, Lamers RED, Kil PJM, van de Poll-Franse LV, de Vries M. Impact of a web-based prostate cancer treatment decision aid on patient-reported decision process parameters: results from the prostate Cancer patient centered care trial. Support Care Cancer. 2018.
13.
go back to reference Grunert KG, Juhl HJ, Esbjerg L, Jensen BB, Bech-Larsen T, Brunso K. Comparing methods for measuring consumer willingness to pay for a basic and an improved ready made soup product. Food Qual Prefer. 2009;20:607–19.CrossRef Grunert KG, Juhl HJ, Esbjerg L, Jensen BB, Bech-Larsen T, Brunso K. Comparing methods for measuring consumer willingness to pay for a basic and an improved ready made soup product. Food Qual Prefer. 2009;20:607–19.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Steiner M, Hendus J. How consumers' willingness to pay is measured in practice; an empirical analysis of common approaches' relevance. SSRN. 2012:1–7. Steiner M, Hendus J. How consumers' willingness to pay is measured in practice; an empirical analysis of common approaches' relevance. SSRN. 2012:1–7.
15.
go back to reference Berry D, Blonquist T, Wilson L, Halpenny B, Hong F. PD17-10 assigning value to the personal patient profile-prostate decision aid: a willingness to pay analysis. J Urol. 2016;195(4):e402.CrossRef Berry D, Blonquist T, Wilson L, Halpenny B, Hong F. PD17-10 assigning value to the personal patient profile-prostate decision aid: a willingness to pay analysis. J Urol. 2016;195(4):e402.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Berger M. Willingness to pay versus willingness to buy: what defines value in healthcare? Value Health. 1998;1(4):201–3.CrossRef Berger M. Willingness to pay versus willingness to buy: what defines value in healthcare? Value Health. 1998;1(4):201–3.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Boman M, Doctorman L. Pick a number, but not just any number: valuation uncertainty and maximum willingness to pay. J Environ Econ Policy. 2017;6(3):283–304.CrossRef Boman M, Doctorman L. Pick a number, but not just any number: valuation uncertainty and maximum willingness to pay. J Environ Econ Policy. 2017;6(3):283–304.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Wilson L, ., Loucks A, Stupar L, O'Donnell S, Moore D, Belkora J: Cost-benefit analysis of decision support methods for patients with breast cancer in a rural community. Commun Oncol 2013, 10(2):47–57. Wilson L, ., Loucks A, Stupar L, O'Donnell S, Moore D, Belkora J: Cost-benefit analysis of decision support methods for patients with breast cancer in a rural community. Commun Oncol 2013, 10(2):47–57.
19.
go back to reference Frew EJ, Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK. Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2004;68(3):289–98.CrossRef Frew EJ, Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK. Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2004;68(3):289–98.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Vaughan WJ, Russell CS, Rodriguez DJ, Darling AC: Central tendency measures of willingness to pay from referendum contingent valuation data: Issures and alternatives in project analysis 1999:1–36. Vaughan WJ, Russell CS, Rodriguez DJ, Darling AC: Central tendency measures of willingness to pay from referendum contingent valuation data: Issures and alternatives in project analysis 1999:1–36.
21.
go back to reference Yee TW. Vector generalized linear and additive models: with an implementation in R. Springer, Inc: NY, NY; 2015.CrossRef Yee TW. Vector generalized linear and additive models: with an implementation in R. Springer, Inc: NY, NY; 2015.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference SAS Institute Inc.: SAS® 9.4 Procedures Guide. In. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2013. SAS Institute Inc.: SAS® 9.4 Procedures Guide. In. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2013.
24.
go back to reference Braun C, Rehdanz K, Schmidt U. Validity of willingness to pay measures under preference uncertainty. PLoS One. 2016;20:1–12. Braun C, Rehdanz K, Schmidt U. Validity of willingness to pay measures under preference uncertainty. PLoS One. 2016;20:1–12.
26.
go back to reference Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D. Economic preferences or attitude expressions?: An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertainty. 1999;19(1–3):203–35.CrossRef Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D. Economic preferences or attitude expressions?: An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertainty. 1999;19(1–3):203–35.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE. Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ. 1999;14:131–50.CrossRef Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE. Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ. 1999;14:131–50.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Lo AY, Jim CY. Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: implications for contingent valuation method. Ecol Econ. 2015;114:58–66.CrossRef Lo AY, Jim CY. Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: implications for contingent valuation method. Ecol Econ. 2015;114:58–66.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Bonnichsen O, Olsen SB. Correcting for non-response bias in contingent valuation surveys concerning environmental non-market goods: an empirical investigation using an online panel. J Environ Plan Manag. 2015;59(2):245–62.CrossRef Bonnichsen O, Olsen SB. Correcting for non-response bias in contingent valuation surveys concerning environmental non-market goods: an empirical investigation using an online panel. J Environ Plan Manag. 2015;59(2):245–62.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Halstead JM, Luloff AE, Stevens TH. Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern J Agricul Res Econ. 1992;21:160–9. Halstead JM, Luloff AE, Stevens TH. Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern J Agricul Res Econ. 1992;21:160–9.
31.
go back to reference Strazzera E, Scarpa R, Calai P, Garrod D, Willis K. Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation survey. Appl Econ. 2013;35:133–8.CrossRef Strazzera E, Scarpa R, Calai P, Garrod D, Willis K. Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation survey. Appl Econ. 2013;35:133–8.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Ready RC, Champ PA, Lawton JL. Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment. Land Econ. 2010:363–81. Ready RC, Champ PA, Lawton JL. Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment. Land Econ. 2010:363–81.
33.
go back to reference Mitchell RC, Carson RT: Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future 2005, New York, NY (Johns Hopkins University Press):4th printing. Mitchell RC, Carson RT: Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future 2005, New York, NY (Johns Hopkins University Press):4th printing.
34.
go back to reference Stalhammar N. An empirical note on willingness to pay and starting-point bias. Med Decis Mak. 1996;16:242–7.CrossRef Stalhammar N. An empirical note on willingness to pay and starting-point bias. Med Decis Mak. 1996;16:242–7.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Hack TF, Degner LF, Parker PA. The communication goals and needs of cancer patients: a review. Psycho-Oncology. 2005;14(10):831–45 discussion 846-837.CrossRef Hack TF, Degner LF, Parker PA. The communication goals and needs of cancer patients: a review. Psycho-Oncology. 2005;14(10):831–45 discussion 846-837.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Anning JJ, Wassersug RJ, Goldenberg SL. Patient preference and the impact of decision-making aids on prostate cancer treatment choices and post-intervention regret. Curr Oncol. 2012;19:1–10.CrossRef Anning JJ, Wassersug RJ, Goldenberg SL. Patient preference and the impact of decision-making aids on prostate cancer treatment choices and post-intervention regret. Curr Oncol. 2012;19:1–10.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Sepucha KR, Simmons LH, Barry MJ, Edgman-levitan S, Licurse AM, Chaguturu SK. Ten years, forty decision aids, and thousands of patient uses: shared decision making at Massachusetts General Hospital. Health Aff. 2016;35(4):630–6.CrossRef Sepucha KR, Simmons LH, Barry MJ, Edgman-levitan S, Licurse AM, Chaguturu SK. Ten years, forty decision aids, and thousands of patient uses: shared decision making at Massachusetts General Hospital. Health Aff. 2016;35(4):630–6.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Assigning value to preparation for prostate cancer decision making: a willingness to pay analysis
Authors
Leslie S. Wilson
Traci M. Blonquist
Fangxin Hong
Barbara Halpenny
Seth Wolpin
Peter Chang
Christopher P. Filson
Viraj A. Master
Martin G. Sanda
Gary W. Chien
Randy A. Jones
Tracey L. Krupski
Donna L. Berry
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0725-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2019 Go to the issue