Literature DB >> 3597681

Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences.

A M O'Connor, N F Boyd, P Warde, L Stolbach, J E Till.   

Abstract

Several methodologic issues arise in eliciting preferences for therapy. Examples are the selection of appropriate descriptions of treatment outcomes and of elicitation techniques. Of particular importance is the correspondence of patients' anticipated preferences for treatment to actual preferences once they have experienced treatment. Treatment outcome descriptions and elicitation techniques were compared for a hypothetical drug decision problem involving trade-offs between quality and quantity of life. Preferences of 54 cancer patients were elicited before, and 6 weeks following initiation of chemotherapy treatment. Patients' preferences were not influenced by the way information about side effects was presented, nor the stated probability of survival at high and moderate levels. A riskless rating technique produced different preferences from those of a risky treatment choice method. Although patients experienced significant toxicity following initiation of treatment, their preferences remained stable on retest. The results raise questions about the extent to which patients are willing, at the time of decision making, to trade off survival rate for improved quality of life.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3597681     DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90133-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chronic Dis        ISSN: 0021-9681


  22 in total

Review 1.  Benefit valuation in economic evaluation of cancer therapies. A systematic review of the published literature.

Authors:  J Brown; M Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques.

Authors:  C Green; J Brazier; M Deverill
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medicine clinic.

Authors:  D J Mazur; D H Hickam
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1990 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Studying patients' preferences in health care decision making. Health Services Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-09-15       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  The effect of age, race and gender on preference scores for hypothetical health states.

Authors:  Eve Wittenberg; Elkan Halpern; Nomia Divi; Lisa A Prosser; Sally S Araki; Jane C Weeks
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  Is there a role for preference assessments in research on quality of life in oncology?

Authors:  J E Till; H J Sutherland; E M Meslin
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations.

Authors:  A Laupacis; D Feeny; A S Detsky; P X Tugwell
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-02-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 8.  Decision making and quality of life in the treatment of cancer: a review.

Authors:  S Yousuf Zafar; Stewart C Alexander; Kevin P Weinfurt; Kevin A Schulman; Amy P Abernethy
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Barriers to obtaining diagnostic testing for coronary artery disease among veterans.

Authors:  Laura A Siminoff; Leslie R M Hausmann; Said Ibrahim
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  The framing effect of relative and absolute risk.

Authors:  D J Malenka; J A Baron; S Johansen; J W Wahrenberger; J M Ross
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.