Literature DB >> 11822793

Measuring women's preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing.

M Cappelli1, L Surh, L Humphreys, S Verma, D Logan, A Hunter, J Allanson.   

Abstract

In establishing decision models in the treatment and prevention of breast cancer, it is important to evaluate patients' preferences for such interventions. The objectives of the present study were: (i) to characterize women's preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing, using the rating scale and standard gamble techniques; and (ii) to identify factors associated with these quality of life indices. Data were collected from women with breast cancer (n = 60), high-risk relatives of women with breast cancer (n = 58), and women in the general population (n = 51). Regardless of group membership, participants favoured treatment and prevention options that involved minimal physical invasiveness. Women with breast cancer rated lumpectomy and radiation treatment more highly than high-risk relatives and women in the general population. Preferences did not differ according to participants' intentions to undergo BRCA testing. Age was the only demographic variable associated with health state preferences. These findings hold implications for the application of patient preferences to clinical decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11822793     DOI: 10.1023/a:1013123915272

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  34 in total

Review 1.  Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index.

Authors:  G W Torrance; W Furlong; D Feeny; M Boyle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  The importance of perspective in the measurement of quality-adjusted life years.

Authors:  J Richardson; E Nord
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1997 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 3.  Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G W Torrance
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

4.  Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapy.

Authors:  A M O'Connor
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Psychological outcomes of different treatment policies in women with early breast cancer outside a clinical trial.

Authors:  L J Fallowfield; A Hall; G P Maguire; M Baum
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-09-22

6.  Comparison of the rating scale and the standard gamble in measuring patient preferences for outcomes of gallstone disease.

Authors:  E B Bass; E P Steinberg; H A Pitt; R I Griffiths; K D Lillemoe; G P Saba; C Johns
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1994 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Predicting the health-related values and preferences of geriatric patients.

Authors:  J W Mold; S W Looney; N J Viviani; P A Quiggins
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 0.493

8.  Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences.

Authors:  A M O'Connor; N F Boyd; P Warde; L Stolbach; J E Till
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

9.  Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials.

Authors:  M P Rutten-van Mölken; C H Bakker; E K van Doorslaer; S van der Linden
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Assessment of the time-tradeoff values for prophylactic mastectomy of women with a suspected genetic predisposition to breast cancer.

Authors:  I Unic; P F Stalmeier; L C Verhoef; W A van Daal
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1998 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  11 in total

1.  Acceptance of preventive surgeries by Israeli women who had undergone BRCA testing.

Authors:  Vardit Kram; Tamar Peretz; Michal Sagi
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2006-05-25       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  The effect of age, race and gender on preference scores for hypothetical health states.

Authors:  Eve Wittenberg; Elkan Halpern; Nomia Divi; Lisa A Prosser; Sally S Araki; Jane C Weeks
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Determinants of preferences for genetic counselling in Jewish women.

Authors:  Carmel Apicella; Stuart J Peacock; Lesley Andrews; Katherine Tucker; Agnes Bankier; Mary B Daly; John L Hopper
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Knowledge, attitudes, and clinical experience of physicians regarding preimplantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes.

Authors:  Amanda C Brandt; Matthew L Tschirgi; Kaylene J Ready; Charlotte Sun; Sandra Darilek; Jacqueline Hecht; Banu K Arun; Karen H Lu
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 5.  Predictors of genetic testing decisions: a systematic review and critique of the literature.

Authors:  Kate Sweeny; Arezou Ghane; Angela M Legg; Ho Phi Huynh; Sara E Andrews
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Cost-effectiveness of different strategies to prevent breast and ovarian cancer in German women with a BRCA 1 or 2 mutation.

Authors:  Dirk Müller; Marion Danner; Kerstin Rhiem; Björn Stollenwerk; Christoph Engel; Linda Rasche; Lisa Borsi; Rita Schmutzler; Stephanie Stock
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-04-05

7.  A mutation analysis of the BRCA1 gene in 140 families from southeast France with a history of breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Philippe Rostagno; Jeanine Gioanni; Eliane Garino; Pierre Vallino; Moise Namer; Marc Frenay
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2003-06-24       Impact factor: 3.172

8.  A discrete choice experiment of preferences for genetic counselling among Jewish women seeking cancer genetics services.

Authors:  S Peacock; C Apicella; L Andrews; K Tucker; A Bankier; M B Daly; J L Hopper
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-11-20       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Uncertainty and denial: a resource-rational model of the value of information.

Authors:  Emma Pierson; Noah Goodman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Personal utility and genomic information: look before you leap.

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Colleen M McBride; James P Evans; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.