Alene Sze Jing Yong1, Yi Heng Lim2, Mark Wing Loong Cheong1, Ednin Hamzah3, Siew Li Teoh4. 1. School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway, 47500, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. 2. School of Biosciences, Taylor's University, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. 3. Hospis Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 4. School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway, 47500, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. teoh.siew.li@monash.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding patient preferences in cancer management is essential for shared decision-making. Patient or societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) for desired outcomes in cancer management represents their preferences and values of these outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate how current literature has addressed WTP in relation to cancer treatment and achievement of outcomes. METHODS: Seven databases were searched from inception until 2 March 2021 to include studies with primary data of WTP values for cancer treatments or achievement of outcomes that were elicited using stated preference methods. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies were included in this review. All studies were published after year 2000 and more than 90% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Sample size of the studies ranged from 35 to 2040, with patient being the most studied population. There was a near even distribution between studies using contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment. Based on the included studies, the highest WTP values were for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ($11,498-$589,822), followed by 1-year survival ($3-$198,576), quality of life (QoL) improvement ($5531-$139,499), and pain reduction ($79-$94,662). Current empirical evidence suggested that improvement in QoL and pain reduction had comparable weights to survival in cancer management. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides a summary on stated preference studies that elicited patient preferences via WTP and summarised their respective values. Respondents in this review had comparable WTP for 1-year survival and QoL, suggesting that improvement in QoL should be emphasised together with survival in cancer management.
BACKGROUND: Understanding patient preferences in cancer management is essential for shared decision-making. Patient or societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) for desired outcomes in cancer management represents their preferences and values of these outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate how current literature has addressed WTP in relation to cancer treatment and achievement of outcomes. METHODS: Seven databases were searched from inception until 2 March 2021 to include studies with primary data of WTP values for cancer treatments or achievement of outcomes that were elicited using stated preference methods. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies were included in this review. All studies were published after year 2000 and more than 90% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Sample size of the studies ranged from 35 to 2040, with patient being the most studied population. There was a near even distribution between studies using contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment. Based on the included studies, the highest WTP values were for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ($11,498-$589,822), followed by 1-year survival ($3-$198,576), quality of life (QoL) improvement ($5531-$139,499), and pain reduction ($79-$94,662). Current empirical evidence suggested that improvement in QoL and pain reduction had comparable weights to survival in cancer management. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides a summary on stated preference studies that elicited patient preferences via WTP and summarised their respective values. Respondents in this review had comparable WTP for 1-year survival and QoL, suggesting that improvement in QoL should be emphasised together with survival in cancer management.
Authors: Kenneth L Kehl; Mary Beth Landrum; Neeraj K Arora; Patricia A Ganz; Michelle van Ryn; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Aysha Rasool; Beverly R Williams; Audrey S Wallace; Soumya J Niranjan; Karina I Halilova; Yasemin E Turkman; Stacey A Ingram; Courtney P Williams; Andres Forero-Torres; Tom Smith; Smita Bhatia; Sara J Knight Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-03-14
Authors: E A G Joosten; L DeFuentes-Merillas; G H de Weert; T Sensky; C P F van der Staak; C A J de Jong Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2008-04-16 Impact factor: 17.659