Literature DB >> 14751919

Patients' preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: discrete choice experiment.

Mark Sculpher1, Stirling Bryan, Pat Fry, Patricia de Winter, Heather Payne, Mark Emberton.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To establish which attributes of conservative treatments for prostate cancer are most important to men.
DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment.
SETTING: Two London hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 129 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer, mean age 70 years; 69 of 118 (58%) with T stage 1 or 2 cancer at diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Men's preferences for, and trade-offs between, the attributes of diarrhoea, hot flushes, ability to maintain an erection, breast swelling or tenderness, physical energy, sex drive, life expectancy, and out of pocket expenses.
RESULTS: The men's responses to changes in attributes were all statistically significant. When asked to assume a starting life expectancy of five years, the men were willing to make trade-offs between life expectancy and side effects. On average, they were most willing to give up life expectancy to avoid limitations in physical energy (mean three months) and least willing to trade life expectancy to avoid hot flushes (mean 0.6 months to move from a moderate to mild level or from mild to none).
CONCLUSIONS: Men with prostate cancer are willing to participate in a relatively complex exercise that weighs up the advantages and disadvantages of various conservative treatments for their condition. They were willing to trade off some life expectancy to be relieved of the burden of troublesome side effects such as limitations in physical energy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14751919      PMCID: PMC341386          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.37972.497234.44

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  8 in total

1.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care.

Authors:  M Ryan; S Farrar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-03

2.  Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability.

Authors:  S Bryan; L Gold; R Sheldon; M Buxton
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences.

Authors:  S Bryan; M Buxton; R Sheldon; A Grant
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Orchiectomy for advanced prostatic carcinoma. A reevaluation.

Authors:  C E Blackard; D P Byar; W P Jordan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1973-06       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer.

Authors:  E M Messing; J Manola; M Sarosdy; G Wilding; E D Crawford; D Trump
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-12-09       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  The toss-up.

Authors:  J P Kassirer; S G Pauker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1981-12-10       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Casodex (bicalutamide) 150-mg monotherapy compared with castration in patients with previously untreated nonmetastatic prostate cancer: results from two multicenter randomized trials at a median follow-up of 4 years.

Authors:  P Iversen; C J Tyrrell; A V Kaisary; J B Anderson; L Baert; T Tammela; M Chamberlain; K Carroll; K Gotting-Smith; G R Blackledge
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  The natural history of early prostate cancer and the impact of endocrine treatment.

Authors:  J Adolfsson
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 20.096

  8 in total
  39 in total

1.  Discrete choice experiments in health care.

Authors:  Mandy Ryan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-02-14

2.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse?

Authors:  Stirling Bryan; Paul Dolan
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2004-10

Review 3.  A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Authors:  Inger M Janssen; Ansgar Gerhardus; Milly A Schröer-Günther; Fülöp Scheibler
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Population preferences for health care in liberia: insights for rebuilding a health system.

Authors:  Margaret E Kruk; Peter C Rockers; S Tornorlah Varpilah; Rose Macauley
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 5.  What implications do the tolerability profiles of antiandrogens and other commonly used prostate cancer treatments have on patient care?

Authors:  Malcolm Mason
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 4.553

6.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  L Hol; E W de Bekker-Grob; L van Dam; B Donkers; E J Kuipers; J D F Habbema; E W Steyerberg; M E van Leerdam; M L Essink-Bot
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-03-02       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Willem Jan Meerding; Bart W Koes; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 9.  Men's and carers' experiences of care for prostate cancer: a narrative literature review.

Authors:  Paul Sinfield; Richard Baker; Janette Camosso-Stefinovic; Andrew M Colman; Carolyn Tarrant; John K Mellon; William Steward; Roger Kockelbergh; Shona Agarwal
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Patients' preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  E W de Bekker-Grob; M L Essink-Bot; W J Meerding; H A P Pols; B W Koes; E W Steyerberg
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-01-08       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.