Literature DB >> 20387912

Does the inclusion of a cost attribute result in different preferences for the surgical treatment of primary basal cell carcinoma?: a comparison of two discrete-choice experiments.

Brigitte A B Essers1, Debby van Helvoort-Postulart, Martin H Prins, Martino Neumann, Carmen D Dirksen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, an increasing number of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) incorporate cost as an attribute. However, the inclusion of a cost attribute, particularly within collectively funded healthcare systems, can be challenging because health services or goods are generally not traded in a market situation and individuals are not used to paying for a service or a good at the point of consumption.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the inclusion of a cost attribute in a DCE results in different preferences regarding a surgical treatment for primary basal cell carcinoma (BCC) compared with a DCE without a cost attribute.
METHODS: A randomized study was performed in which the impact of a cost attribute on the general public's preferences for a surgical treatment (Mohs micrographic surgery [MMS] or standard excision [SE]) to remove BCC was examined. This was done by comparing the outcomes of two DCEs, one with a cost attribute (DCE_cost) and one without (DCE_nocost). Six attributes (recurrence, re-excision, travel time, surgical time, waiting time for surgical results, costs) and their levels were selected, based on results of a clinical trial, a cost-effectiveness study, a review and a focus group of patients who had recently received treatment for BCC. Outcomes of both DCEs were compared in terms of theoretical validity, relative importance of the attributes and the rank order of preferences.
RESULTS: A total of 615 respondents (n = 303 for DCE_nocost; n = 312 for DCE_cost) were interviewed by telephone. This gave an overall response rate of 38%. Respondents in DCE_nocost preferred a surgical treatment with a lower probability of recurrence, lower surgery time, lower waiting time and no risk for a re-excision. Respondents in DCE_cost showed the same preferences, but also preferred a treatment with less travel time and lower costs. Overall, respondents in both DCEs showed the same preference for a surgical treatment: MMS was preferred over SE.
CONCLUSION: Results suggest that, in this population, the inclusion of a cost attribute in a DCE leads to the same preference regarding a surgical treatment to remove BCC as a DCE without a cost attribute. However, further research in different settings is needed to confirm these findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20387912     DOI: 10.2165/11532240-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  19 in total

1.  Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles' heel?

Authors:  Ulla Slothuus Skjoldborg; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  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

3.  Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: results from a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Kara Hanson; Barbara McPake; Pamela Nakamba; Luke Archard
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry?

Authors:  Trine Kjaer; Mickael Bech; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Kristian Hart-Hansen
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Using discrete choice experiments within a cost-benefit analysis framework: some considerations.

Authors:  Emma McIntosh
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship.

Authors:  S Vick; A Scott
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Predictions of skin cancer incidence in the Netherlands up to 2015.

Authors:  E de Vries; L V van de Poll-Franse; W J Louwman; F R de Gruijl; J W W Coebergh
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 9.302

8.  Preferences for self-care or professional advice for minor illness: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Terry Porteous; Mandy Ryan; Christine M Bond; Phil Hannaford
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  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

10.  Cost-effectiveness of Mohs Micrographic Surgery vs Surgical Excision for Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Face.

Authors:  Brigitte A B Essers; Carmen D Dirksen; Fred H M Nieman; Nicole W J Smeets; Gertrude A M Krekels; Martin H Prins; H A Martino Neumann
Journal:  Arch Dermatol       Date:  2006-02
View more
  12 in total

1.  Fee comparisons of treatments for nonmelanoma skin cancer in a private practice academic setting.

Authors:  Leslie S Wilson; Mark Pregenzer; Rituparna Basu; Daniel Bertenthal; Jeanette Torres; Maryam Asgari; Mary-Margaret Chren
Journal:  Dermatol Surg       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 3.398

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Terry Flynn; Jordan Louviere; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Stuart J Wright; Caroline M Vass; Gene Sim; Michael Burton; Denzil G Fiebig; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 5.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments.

Authors:  Hannah Collacott; Vikas Soekhai; Caitlin Thomas; Anne Brooks; Ella Brookes; Rachel Lo; Sarah Mulnick; Sebastian Heidenreich
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Depressive symptoms and posttraumatic stress disorder as determinants of preference weights for attributes of obstetric care among Ethiopian women.

Authors:  Magdalena M Paczkowski; Margaret E Kruk; Fasil Tessema; Ayalew Tegegn; Sandro Galea
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  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.

Authors:  Michela Tinelli; Mara Ozolins; Fiona Bath-Hextall; Hywel C Williams
Journal:  BMC Dermatol       Date:  2012-10-04

9.  The effect of perceived risks on the demand for vaccination: results from a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Md Z Sadique; Nancy Devlin; William J Edmunds; David Parkin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Developing attributes for discrete choice experiments in health: a systematic literature review and case study of alcohol misuse interventions.

Authors:  Timea Mariann Helter; Christian Ernst Heinrich Boehler
Journal:  J Subst Use       Date:  2016-03-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.