Patient Preferences for Pain Management in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Meads, David; O’Dwyer, John; Hulme, Claire; Chintakayala, Phani Kumar; Vinall‐Collier, Karen; Bennett, Mike

doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0236-x

Cited by 27 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Health economists regularly elicit quantitative preference data from samples of patients and the general public [1][2][3][4]. Quantitative preference data, such as estimates of tradeoffs and valuations, can influence healthcare decision making by being provided as supplementary information or by being used within other analyses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind?

Mott

2018

Patient

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind?

Mott

2018

Patient

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Of the 52 applied DCEs identified, four simply referred to the concept of understanding within the discussion [38,39,92,93]. In these studies, understanding was referred to as an indicator of validity of the results.…”

Section: Applied Dces That Referred To Understanding In the Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meads, 2017 [93] "We did not test patient's understanding of the DCE method, although the survey was carefully explained to individuals" In the discussion, to interpret results…”

Section: Not Reportedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review

Pearce

Harrison

Watson

et al. 2020

Patient

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Despite the recognised importance of participant understanding for valid and reliable discrete choice experiment (DCE) results, there has been limited assessment of whether, and how, people understand DCEs, and how 'understanding' is conceptualised in DCEs applied to a health context. Objectives Our aim was to identify how participant understanding is conceptualised in the DCE literature in a health context. Our research questions addressed how participant understanding is defined, measured, and used. Methods Searches were conducted (June 2019) in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Econlit databases, as well as hand searching. Search terms were based on previous DCE systematic reviews, with additional understanding keywords used in a proximity-based search strategy. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed journal articles in the field of health, related to DCE or best-worst scaling type 3 (BWS3) studies, and reporting some consideration or assessment of participant understanding. A descriptive analytical approach was used to chart relevant data from each study, including publication year, country, clinical area, subject group, sample size, study design, numbers of attributes, levels and choice sets, definition of understanding, how understanding was tested, results of the understanding tests, and how the information about understanding was used. Each study was categorised based on how understanding was conceptualised and used within the study. Results Of 306 potentially eligible articles identified, 31 were excluded based on titles and abstracts, and 200 were excluded on full-text review, resulting in 75 included studies. Three categories of study were identified: applied DCEs (n = 52), pretesting studies (n = 7) and studies of understanding (n = 16). Typically, understanding was defined in relation to either the choice context, such as attribute terminology, or the concept of choosing. Very few studies considered respondents' engagement as a component of understanding. Understanding was measured primarily through qualitative pretesting, rationality or validity tests included in the survey, and participant self-report, however reporting and use of the results of these methods was inconsistent. Conclusions Those conducting or using health DCEs should carefully select, justify, and report the measurement and potential impact of participant understanding in their specific choice context. There remains scope for research into the different components of participant understanding, particularly related to engagement, the impact of participant understanding on DCE validity and reliability, the best measures of understanding, and methods to maximise participant understanding.

show abstract

“…It will be informed by earlier work of the research team. 46 The evaluation will combine trial-based and model-based analyses. Trial data will be analysed to yield within-trial cost-utility results.…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the management of pain from advanced cancer in the community: study protocol for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionFor patients with advanced cancer, research shows that pain is frequent, burdensome and undertreated. Evidence-based approaches to support cancer pain management have been developed but have not been implemented within the context of the UK National Health Service. This protocol is for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for a multicomponent intervention for pain management in patients with advanced cancer.Methods and analysisThis trial will assess the feasibility of implementation and uptake of evidence-based interventions, developed and piloted as part of the Improving the Management of Pain from Advanced Cancer in the Community Programme grant, into routine clinical practice and determine whether there are potential differences with respect to patient-rated pain, patient pain knowledge and experience, healthcare use, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. 160 patients will receive either the intervention (usual care plus supported self-management) delivered within the oncology clinic and palliative care services by locally assigned community palliative care nurses, consisting of a self-management educational intervention and eHealth intervention for routine pain assessment and monitoring; or usual care. The primary outcomes are to assess implementation and uptake of the interventions, and differences in terms of pain severity. Secondary outcomes include pain interference, participant pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. Outcome assessment will be blinded and patient-reported outcome measures collected via post at 6 and 12 weeks following randomisation.Ethics and disseminationThis RCT has the potential to significantly influence National Health Service delivery to community-based patients with pain from advanced cancer. We aim to provide definitive evidence of whether two simple interventions delivered by community palliative care nurse in palliative care that support-self-management are clinically effective and cost-effective additions to standard community palliative care.Trial registration number ISRCTN18281271; Pre-results.

show abstract

Patient Preferences for Pain Management in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Cited by 27 publications

References 28 publications

Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind?

Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind?

Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review

Improving the management of pain from advanced cancer in the community: study protocol for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About