Discrete Choice Experiment to Estimate Breast Cancer Patients’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Prophylactic Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors

Johnson, P.; Bancroft, T. A.; Barron, Richard; Legg, Jason C.; Li, Xiaoyan; Watson, Holly Howe; Naeim, Arash; Watkins, Angela; Marshall, Deborah A.

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.002

Cited by 30 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, patients could accept higher risk for anemia to trade for PFS. Our results were inconsistent with the results from an only previous DCE study on breast cancer patients’ preference for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (Johnson et al 2014 ). Even though they might not be a good comparison due to various differences, e.g.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Patients’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treatments after failure of standard treatments

Ngorsuraches

Thongkeaw

2015

SpringerPlus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients’ preferences increasingly play roles in cancer treatments. The objective of this study is to examine breast cancer patients’ preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treatments after failure of standard treatments. Four attributes, i.e. progression free survival (PFS), anemia, pneumonitis, and cost, and their levels of exemestane and exemestane plus everolimus from literature and patient interviews were used to develop a discrete choice experiment questionnaire. Each questionnaire was composed of seven choice sets and each choice set contained those four attributes with different levels. Breast cancer patients were asked to choose one treatment alternative in each choice set. Multinomial logit model was used to determine relative preferences of each attribute and the WTP for all attributes and treatments were calculated. A total of 146 patients were included in study analyses. Results showed that the patients preferred treatments with higher PFS and lower side effects. The patients were willing to pay US$151.6, US$69.8, and US$278.3 per month in exchange for every 1 month increase in PFS and every 1 % decreased risk of anemia and pneumonitis, respectively. The patients were willing to pay for exemestane and exemestane plus everolimus US$551.8 and US$414.2 per month, respectively. In conclusion, patients weighted importance on PFS, anemia, and pneumonitis, when they needed to choose an aromatase inhibitor plus mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor for advanced breast cancer treatments after failure of standard treatments. They valued exemestane alone more than exemestane plus everolimus.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Patients’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treatments after failure of standard treatments

Ngorsuraches

Thongkeaw

2015

SpringerPlus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Johnson and colleagues conducted a discrete choice experiment to explore willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to decrease the risk of febrile neutropenia. 27 In this study, patients were willing to pay more than $1,000 to reduce the risk of disrupting their chemotherapy schedule, and more than $800 to reduce the risk of infection. 27 Among patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a similar experiment found that for each $10 increase in out-of-pocket costs, the adjusted odds ratio for accepting outpatient care for febrile neutropenia was 0.84.…”

Section: The Cost Of Cancer Carementioning

confidence: 99%

“…27 In this study, patients were willing to pay more than $1,000 to reduce the risk of disrupting their chemotherapy schedule, and more than $800 to reduce the risk of infection. 27 Among patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a similar experiment found that for each $10 increase in out-of-pocket costs, the adjusted odds ratio for accepting outpatient care for febrile neutropenia was 0.84. 28 It is interesting to note that the adjusted odds ratio for accepting outpatient care was even lower (0.53) for each 5% increase in probability of return to the hospital, suggesting that risk of hospitalization may be a greater deterrent than small increases in out-of-pocket costs.…”

Section: The Cost Of Cancer Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Financial toxicity in cancer care

O’Connor

Kircher

Souza

2016

J Community Support Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cost of cancer care is increasing, with important implications for the delivery of high-quality, patent-centered care. In the clinical setting, patents and physicians express a desire to discuss out-of-pocket costs. Nevertheless, both groups feel inadequately prepared to participate in these discussions, and perhaps not surprisingly, the integration of these discussions into clinical practice seems to be the exception rather than the rule. The resulting neglect of financial issues has the potential to cause unnecessary suffering for oncology patents. In this paper, we review the most relevant literature on financial toxicity in cancer care. In addition, we discuss potential predictors of financial toxicity, and the recent development of instruments to help clinicians and researchers quantify financial burden.

show abstract

“…A DCE is appropriate for this type of research because preference weights derived from a DCE are estimated on a common scale and can be used to calculate ratios describing the trade-offs respondents are willing to make among the attributes. Examples of these trade-offs include estimates of money equivalence (willingness to pay) [30,31], risk equivalence (maximum acceptable risk) [18,32], or time equivalence [33,34] for various changes in attributes or attribute levels. Although the underlying premise and the mechanics of using a DCE are similar in market research and outcomes research, the objectives of using a DCE typically differ between these disciplines.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conjoint analysis is a stated-preference survey method that can be used to elicit responses that reveal preferences, priorities, and the relative importance of individual features associated with health care interventions or services. Conjoint analysis methods, particularly discrete choice experiments (DCEs), have been increasingly used to quantify preferences of patients, caregivers, physicians, and other stakeholders. Recent consensus-based guidance on good research practices, including two recent task force reports from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, has aided in improving the quality of conjoint analyses and DCEs in outcomes research. Nevertheless, uncertainty regarding good research practices for the statistical analysis of data from DCEs persists. There are multiple methods for analyzing DCE data. Understanding the characteristics and appropriate use of different analysis methods is critical to conducting a well-designed DCE study. This report will assist researchers in evaluating and selecting among alternative approaches to conducting statistical analysis of DCE data. We first present a simplistic DCE example and a simple method for using the resulting data. We then present a pedagogical example of a DCE and one of the most common approaches to analyzing data from such a question format-conditional logit. We then describe some common alternative methods for analyzing these data and the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative. We present the ESTIMATE checklist, which includes a list of questions to consider when justifying the choice of analysis method, describing the analysis, and interpreting the results.

show abstract

Discrete Choice Experiment to Estimate Breast Cancer Patients’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Prophylactic Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors

Cited by 30 publications

References 39 publications

Patients’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treatments after failure of standard treatments

Patients’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treatments after failure of standard treatments

Financial toxicity in cancer care

Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About