Alice Yu1, Deborah Street2, Rosalie Viney2, Stephen Goodall2, Alison Pearce3, Philip Haywood2, Marion Haas2, Eva Battaglini4, David Goldstein4, Hannah Timmins5, Susanna B Park6. 1. University of Technology Sydney (CHERE), Sydney, NSW, Australia. alice.yu@chere.uts.edu.au. 2. University of Technology Sydney (CHERE), Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. University of Sydney (Sydney School of Public Health), Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. University of New South Wales (Prince of Wales Clinical School), Sydney, NSW, Australia. 5. University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 6. Brain and Mind Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Up to 40% of cancer patients treated with neurotoxic chemotherapies experience chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Currently, there is no gold standard assessment tool for CIPN and there is little information in the literature on patient preferences for such assessments. This study aims to address this gap by identifying the features of a CIPN assessment tool that cancer patients value. METHODS: An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey of neurotoxic chemotherapy-treated patients was implemented. Respondents completed 8 choice questions each. In each choice question, they chose between two hypothetical CIPN assessment tools, each described by six attributes: impact on quality of life; level of nerve damage detected; questionnaire length; physical tests involved; impact on clinic time; impact on care. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 117 respondents who had a range of cancers of which breast cancer was the most common. Respondents favoured an assessment tool that includes a physical test and that asks about impact on quality of life. Respondents were strongly opposed to clinicians, alone, deciding how the results of a CIPN assessment might influence their care especially their chemotherapy treatment. They were concerned about small changes in their CIPN, independent of clinical relevance. Respondents were willing to add half an hour to the usual clinic time to accommodate the CIPN assessment. CONCLUSION: The findings of this DCE will assist clinicians in choosing an assessment tool for CIPN that is satisfactory to both clinician and patient.
PURPOSE: Up to 40% of cancerpatients treated with neurotoxic chemotherapies experience chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Currently, there is no gold standard assessment tool for CIPN and there is little information in the literature on patient preferences for such assessments. This study aims to address this gap by identifying the features of a CIPN assessment tool that cancerpatients value. METHODS: An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey of neurotoxic chemotherapy-treated patients was implemented. Respondents completed 8 choice questions each. In each choice question, they chose between two hypothetical CIPN assessment tools, each described by six attributes: impact on quality of life; level of nerve damage detected; questionnaire length; physical tests involved; impact on clinic time; impact on care. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 117 respondents who had a range of cancers of which breast cancer was the most common. Respondents favoured an assessment tool that includes a physical test and that asks about impact on quality of life. Respondents were strongly opposed to clinicians, alone, deciding how the results of a CIPN assessment might influence their care especially their chemotherapy treatment. They were concerned about small changes in their CIPN, independent of clinical relevance. Respondents were willing to add half an hour to the usual clinic time to accommodate the CIPN assessment. CONCLUSION: The findings of this DCE will assist clinicians in choosing an assessment tool for CIPN that is satisfactory to both clinician and patient.
Authors: Anne Herrmann; Rob Sanson-Fisher; Alix Hall; Laura Wall; Nicholas Zdenkowski; Amy Waller Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: J Matt McCrary; David Goldstein; Frances Boyle; Keith Cox; Peter Grimison; Matthew C Kiernan; Arun V Krishnan; Craig R Lewis; Kate Webber; Sally Baron-Hay; Lisa Horvath; Susanna B Park Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Susanna B Park; David Goldstein; Arun V Krishnan; Cindy S-Y Lin; Michael L Friedlander; James Cassidy; Martin Koltzenburg; Matthew C Kiernan Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Tiffany Li; Susanna B Park; Eva Battaglini; Madeleine T King; Matthew C Kiernan; David Goldstein; Claudia Rutherford Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 3.440