Literature DB >> 22234737

Preferences for cancer treatments: an overview of methods and applications in oncology.

P Blinman1, M King, R Norman, R Viney, M R Stockler.   

Abstract

This review provides cancer clinicians and researchers with an overview of methods for assessing preferences, with examples and recommendations for their application in oncology. Decisions about cancer treatments involve trade-offs between their relative benefits and harms. An individual's preference for a cancer treatment reflects their evaluation of the relative benefits and harms in comparison with a given alternative or alternatives. Methods of preference assessment include the ranking or rating scale, standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), visual analogue scale, discrete choice experiment (DCE), and multi-attribute utility instrument (MAUI). The choice of method depends on the purpose of preference assessment; the ranking or rating scale, SG, TTO, and DCEs are best suited to clinical decisions, whereas MAUIs are best suited to health policy decisions. Knowledge of patients' preferences for cancer treatments can better inform clinical decisions about patient management by enabling the tailoring of decisions to individual patients' values, attitudes, and priorities and health policy decisions through economic evaluations of cancer treatments and their suitability for coverage by health payers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22234737     DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdr559

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  35 in total

1.  Increased survival time or better quality of life? Trade-off between benefits and adverse events in the systemic treatment of cancer.

Authors:  V Valentí; J Ramos; C Pérez; L Capdevila; I Ruiz; L Tikhomirova; M Sánchez; I Juez; M Llobera; E Sopena; J Rubió; R Salazar
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 3.405

2.  Patient preferences for stopping tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  D Sanford; R Kyle; A Lazo-Langner; A Xenocostas; I Chin-Yee; K Howson-Jan; C Hsia
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  Response to "Need to minimize bias when surveying patient attitudes to stopping cml treatment".

Authors:  David Sanford; Rachel Kyle; Alejandro Lazo-Langner; Anargyros Xenocostas; Ian Chin-Yee; Kang Howson-Jan; Cyrus C Hsia
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 4.  Treatment preferences in human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer.

Authors:  Melina J Windon; Gypsyamber D'Souza; Carole Fakhry
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 3.404

Review 5.  Multicriteria decision analysis in oncology.

Authors:  Georges Adunlin; Vakaramoko Diaby; Alberto J Montero; Hong Xiao
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Does Patient Preference Measurement in Decision Aids Improve Decisional Conflict? A Randomized Trial in Men with Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Joseph D Shirk; Catherine M Crespi; Josemanuel D Saucedo; Sylvia Lambrechts; Ely Dahan; Robert Kaplan; Christopher Saigal
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Understanding patients' values and preferences regarding early stage lung cancer treatment decision making.

Authors:  Donald R Sullivan; Karen B Eden; Nathan F Dieckmann; Sara E Golden; Kelly C Vranas; Shannon M Nugent; Christopher G Slatore
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2019-03-09       Impact factor: 5.705

8.  A Systematic Review of Health-Related Quality of Life Reporting in Ovarian Cancer Phase III Clinical Trials: Room to Improve.

Authors:  Michelle K Wilson; Michael L Friedlander; Florence Joly; Amit M Oza
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-11-08

9.  Patient preference and the impact of decision-making aids on prostate cancer treatment choices and post-intervention regret.

Authors:  J J Aning; R J Wassersug; S L Goldenberg
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.677

10.  Conceptualizing global health-related quality of life in bladder cancer.

Authors:  Nathan Perlis; Murray Krahn; Shabbir Alibhai; Antonio Finelli; Paul Ritvo; Karen E Bremner; Girish Kulkarni
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.