Literature DB >> 25805740

Comparison of preferences for end-of-life care among patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers: A discrete choice experiment.

Chetna Malhotra1, Muhammad Assad Farooqui2, Ravindran Kanesvaran3, Marcel Bilger2, Eric Finkelstein4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer often have to make difficult decisions, such as how much to spend on moderately life-extending treatments. This and other end-of-life decisions are also influenced by their informal caregivers. Understanding the relative value that patients and their caregivers place on various aspects of end-of-life care can help clinicians tailor treatments to best meet the preferences of their patients. AIM: To quantify willingness to pay of patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers to extend the patients' life by 1 year and to compare this result to their willingness to pay for other end-of-life improvements.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey using a discrete choice experiment. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 211 patients with stage IV cancer and their informal caregivers.
RESULTS: The willingness to pay of patients to extend their life by 1 year (S$18,570; 95% confidence interval: S$6687-S$30,542) was not statistically different from their willingness to pay to avoid severe pain (S$22,199; S$11,648-S$32,450), to die at home (S$31,256; S$21,249-S$41,391), not be a burden on family and friends (S$4051; -S$3543 to S$11,568), or to receive a high-quality health-care experience (S$16,191; S$9266-S$23,037). Consistent with our hypothesis, caregivers had a greater willingness to pay than patients to extend life (S$61,368; S$37,030-S$86,210) and for most other end-of-life improvements.
CONCLUSION: Results highlight the importance of pain management, supporting home deaths, and addressing other end-of-life concerns, in addition to efforts to extend life. Differences in willingness to pay of patients and caregivers suggest the need for eliciting patient preferences during treatment decision making as opposed to relying on caregiver input.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Terminal care; choice behavior; decision making; discrete choice experiment; palliative care; willingness to pay

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25805740     DOI: 10.1177/0269216315578803

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Palliat Med        ISSN: 0269-2163            Impact factor:   4.762


  19 in total

1.  The Monetary Value of Informal Care: Obtaining Pure Time Valuations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Renske J Hoefman; Job van Exel; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Numeracy and Understanding of Quantitative Aspects of Predictive Models: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Gary E Weissman; Kuldeep N Yadav; Vanessa Madden; Katherine R Courtright; Joanna L Hart; David A Asch; Marilyn M Schapira; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 2.342

3.  Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alene Sze Jing Yong; Yi Heng Lim; Mark Wing Loong Cheong; Ednin Hamzah; Siew Li Teoh
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-12-02

4.  Quality versus quantity in end-of-life choices of cancer patients and support persons: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Amy Waller; Rob Sanson-Fisher; Scott D Brown; Laura Wall; Justin Walsh
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  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

6.  Raise the Bar, Not the Threshold Value: Meeting Patient Preferences for Palliative and End-of-Life Care.

Authors:  Nikki McCaffrey; Simon Eckermann
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2018-06

7.  Retrospective cohort analysis of real-life decisions about end-of-life care preferences in a Southeast Asian country.

Authors:  Woan Shin Tan; Ram Bajpai; Andy Hau Yan Ho; Chan Kee Low; Josip Car
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Patient, Caregiver, and Nurse Preferences for Treatments for Bone Metastases from Solid Tumors.

Authors:  Yi Qian; Jorge Arellano; A Brett Hauber; Ateesha F Mohamed; Juan Marcos Gonzalez; Guy Hechmati; Francesca Gatta; Stacey Harrelson; Cynthia Campbell-Baird
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Individual Trade-Offs Between Possible Benefits and Risks of Cancer Treatments: Results from a Stated Preference Study with Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  Douwe Postmus; Sarah Richard; Nathalie Bere; Gert van Valkenhoef; Jayne Galinsky; Eric Low; Isabelle Moulon; Maria Mavris; Tomas Salmonsson; Beatriz Flores; Hans Hillege; Francesco Pignatti
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-10-27

10.  Development of a Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) to Elicit Adolescent and Parent Preferences for Hypodontia Treatment.

Authors:  Sophy Barber; Hilary Bekker; Joachim Marti; Sue Pavitt; Balvinder Khambay; David Meads
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 3.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.