Literature DB >> 30425050

Hospice patients' participation in choice experiments to value supportive care outcomes.

Cara Bailey1, Philip Kinghorn2, Alistair Hewison3, Christina Radcliffe4, Terry Nicholas Flynn5, Elizabeth Huynh6, Joanna Coast7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Values used in economic evaluation are typically obtained from the general public, which is problematic when measures are to be used with people experiencing a life-course stage such as the end of life.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of obtaining values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (SCM) from patients receiving advanced supportive care through a hospice.
METHODS: Participants completed eight best-worst scaling questions in a think-aloud interview to explain choices in different hypothetical end-of-life scenarios. Three independent raters identified errors in completion of the best-worst scaling task, and thematic analysis of associated qualitative data was undertaken to explore task difficulty and choices.
RESULTS: Twelve hospice patients were recruited. Most were able to complete the task and prioritise aspects of supportive care with either no difficulty (n=50%) or difficulty in just one of the eight scenarios (n=25%). Two patients (n=17%) were unable to comprehend the hypothetical nature of the task. The qualitative data confirmed there was good engagement with the task and identified the importance the respondents attached to maintaining dignity.
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that people at the end of life will be able to complete a short, interviewer-administered, best-worst scaling task. To maximise engagement, it is recommended that the task is short and initiated with an example. Scenarios are best presented on show-cards in large print. A full evaluation of the ICECAP-SCM with those at the end of life is feasible. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  end of life care; hospice care; methodological research; quality of life; supportive care

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30425050     DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2018-001582

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Support Palliat Care        ISSN: 2045-435X            Impact factor:   3.568


  4 in total

1.  An analysis of the construct validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-SCM capability wellbeing measure in a palliative care hospice setting.

Authors:  Gareth Myring; Paul Mark Mitchell; W George Kernohan; Sonja McIlfatrick; Sarah Cudmore; Anne M Finucane; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Alistair Hewison; Louise Jones; Joanne Jordan; Laurie McKibben; Deborah H L Muldrew; Shazia Zafar; Joanna Coast
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 3.113

2.  Valuing end-of-life care: translation and content validation of the ICECAP-SCM measure.

Authors:  Uta Gühne; Marie Dorow; Jessica Grothe; Janine Stein; Margrit Löbner; Judith Dams; Joanna Coast; Philip Kinghorn; Hans-Helmut König; Steffi G Riedel-Heller
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 3.234

3.  German tariffs for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluations at the end of life.

Authors:  Judith Dams; Elisabeth Huynh; Steffi Riedel-Heller; Margrit Löbner; Christian Brettschneider; Hans-Helmut König
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-01-21

4.  Best-Worst Scaling and the Prioritization of Objects in Health: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Ilene L Hollin; Jonathan Paskett; Anne L R Schuster; Norah L Crossnohere; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 4.558

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.