Literature DB >> 16468083

Are chemotherapy patients' HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach.

F Reed Johnson1, A Brett Hauber, David Osoba, Ming-Ann Hsu, John Coombs, Catherine Copley-Merriman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare a linear scoring rule with the subjective importance of different domain and symptom levels of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) among patients undergoing chemotherapy.
METHODS: Using a stated-choice or choice-format conjoint analysis survey instrument, we elicited patient preferences for varying levels of physical, role, social, emotional, and cognitive function along with chemotherapy-related side effects and financial difficulties. A total of 375 patients completed the questionnaire: 159 breast cancer, 117 colorectal cancer, 99 non-small-cell lung cancer; and 21 with unknown tumor type. Constrained maximum likelihood estimates were used to estimate relative importance weights for each level of each domain and symptom.
RESULTS: Summary HRQoL measures generally presume that differences among Likert categories are equally important to patients within and across outcomes. Our results indicate strong non-linearities both within and across domain and symptom categories. Improvements from severe pain to mild pain, severe fatigue to no fatigue, and severe social limitations to moderate social limitations are all about twice as important as no work to limited work in the Role domain.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate large differences in the impact of individual domains and symptoms on patient perceptions of well-being. Most cancer patients are likely to be less concerned about specific symptoms than the impact of those symptoms on their ability to function physically, socially, and in their daily roles.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16468083     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-005-0581-4

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


  14 in total

1.  Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach.

Authors:  F R Johnson; M R Banzhaf; W H Desvousges
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Modeling choice behavior for new pharmaceutical products.

Authors:  M F Bingham; F R Johnson; D Miller
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Tara Maddala; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination.

Authors:  Jane Hall; Patricia Kenny; Madeleine King; Jordan Louviere; Rosalie Viney; Angela Yeoh
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Development and validation of the health assessment questionnaire II: a revised version of the health assessment questionnaire.

Authors:  Frederick Wolfe; Kaleb Michaud; Theodore Pincus
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2004-10

6.  Eliciting stated health preferences: an application to willingness to pay for longevity.

Authors:  F R Johnson; W H Desvousges; M C Ruby; D Stieb; P De Civita
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1998 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Rasch analysis of the Western Ontario MacMaster questionnaire (WOMAC) in 2205 patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia.

Authors:  F Wolfe; S X Kong
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 19.103

8.  Integrating patient preferences into health outcomes assessment: the multiattribute Asthma Symptom Utility Index.

Authors:  D A Revicki; N K Leidy; F Brennan-Diemer; S Sorensen; A Togias
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 9.410

9.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology.

Authors:  N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-03-03       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Stated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) domains during treatment.

Authors:  David Osoba; Ming-Ann Hsu; Catherine Copley-Merriman; John Coombs; F Reed Johnson; Brett Hauber; Ranjani Manjunath; Amanda Pyles
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.147

View more
  11 in total

1.  Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Angela T Lataille; Christine Buttorff; Sharon White; John K Niparko
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2012-04-17

2.  Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Ateesha F Mohamed; A Brett Hauber; F Reed Johnson; Cheryl D Coon
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  Assessing patient preferences for treatment options and process of care in inflammatory bowel disease: a critical review of quantitative data.

Authors:  Meenakshi Bewtra; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Quantitative Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment from the Patients' Perspective: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Yasuo Sugitani; Naoko Sugitani; Shunsuke Ono
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 5.  [Patient-reported and patient-weighted outcomes in ophthalmology].

Authors:  F Scheibler; R P Finger; R Grosselfinger; C-M Dintsios
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.059

6.  Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis.

Authors:  A Brett Hauber; Ateesha F Mohamed; F Reed Johnson; Olatoye Oyelowo; Bradley H Curtis; Cheryl Coon
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Patients' preferences for osteoarthritis treatment: the value of stated-preference studies.

Authors:  Mickael Hiligsmann; Daniel Pinto; Elaine Dennison; Nasser Al-Daghri; Charlotte Beaudart; Jaime Branco; Olivier Bruyère; Philip G Conaghan; Cyrus Cooper; Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont; Famida Jiwa; Willem Lems; Rene Rizzoli; Thierry Thomas; Nicola Veronese; Jean-Yves Reginster
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 3.636

8.  Stated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) domains during treatment.

Authors:  David Osoba; Ming-Ann Hsu; Catherine Copley-Merriman; John Coombs; F Reed Johnson; Brett Hauber; Ranjani Manjunath; Amanda Pyles
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Assessing the Importance of Treatment Goals in Patients with Psoriasis: Analytic Hierarchy Process vs. Likert Scales.

Authors:  Mandy Gutknecht; Marion Danner; Marthe-Lisa Schaarschmidt; Christian Gross; Matthias Augustin
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.883

10.  Measuring the importance of health domains in psoriasis - discrete choice experiment versus rating scales.

Authors:  Mandy Gutknecht; Marthe-Lisa Schaarschmidt; Marion Danner; Christine Blome; Matthias Augustin
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 2.711

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.