Patient preference for cancer therapy: An overview of measurement approaches

被引:128
作者
Stiggelbout, AM
de Haes, JCJM
机构
[1] Leiden Univ, Med Ctr, Med Decis Making Unit, Dept Med Decis Making, NL-2300 RC Leiden, Netherlands
[2] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Med Psychol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
D O I
10.1200/JCO.2001.19.1.220
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: In the era of evidence-based medicine and shared decision making, the formal assessment of patient preference for treatments or treatment outcomes has attracted much attention. In this article, the two most common approaches to the evaluation of preference, ie, utility assessment and probability trade-off assessment, are described. The purpose is to provide clinicians with the background knowledge needed to interpret preference studies published in the literature and to judge whether the reported findings are relevant to their own patients. Methods: An overview is given of the methods used to assess utilities and probability trade-off scores. Evidence on determinants of such scores is presented. Examples from oncology are provided. Because experience with the treatment plays an important role as a determinant of preferences for both treatments and treatment outcomes, special attention is paid to the interpretation of studies in the light of subject selection. Directions for future research are suggested. Conclusion: The choice of approach and the measuring instrument depend on the goal of the preference assessment. Normal psychologic processes, such as coping, adaptation, and cognitive dissonance reduction, cause patients who are about to undergo a therapy or have experienced ct therapy to rate it more favorably than other patients do. This should be remembered when using evidence from the literature to inform patients or for patient decision making. J Clin Oncol 19:220-230. (C) 2001 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
引用
收藏
页码:220 / 230
页数:11
相关论文
共 71 条
[1]   Assessment of patient preferences among men with prostate cancer [J].
Albertsen, PC ;
Nease, RF ;
Potosky, AL .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1998, 159 (01) :158-163
[2]   THE TIME TRADE-OFF TECHNIQUE - HOW DO THE VALUATIONS OF BREAST-CANCER PATIENTS COMPARE TO THOSE OF OTHER GROUPS [J].
ASHBY, J ;
OHANLON, M ;
BUXTON, MJ .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1994, 3 (04) :257-265
[3]   The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication [J].
Bosch, JL ;
Hunink, MGM .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1996, 16 (03) :217-225
[4]   WHOSE UTILITIES FOR DECISION-ANALYSIS [J].
BOYD, NF ;
SUTHERLAND, HJ ;
HEASMAN, KZ ;
TRITCHLER, DL ;
CUMMINGS, BJ .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1990, 10 (01) :58-67
[5]   Cancer patients, doctors and nurses vary in their willingness to undertake cancer chemotherapy [J].
Bremnes, RM ;
Andersen, K ;
Wist, EA .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1995, 31A (12) :1955-1959
[6]   Trading treatment toxicity for survival in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer [J].
Brundage, MD ;
Davidson, JR ;
Mackillop, WJ .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1997, 15 (01) :330-340
[7]   Using a treatment-tradeoff method to elicit preferences for the treatment of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer [J].
Brundage, MD ;
Davidson, JR ;
Mackillop, WJ ;
Feldman-Stewart, D ;
Groome, P .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1998, 18 (03) :256-267
[8]  
BUSH JW, 1984, ASSESSMENT QUALITY L, P118
[9]   Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model [J].
Charles, C ;
Gafni, A ;
Whelan, T .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1999, 49 (05) :651-661
[10]   Angina patients' ratings of current health and health without angina: Associations with severity of angina and comorbidity [J].
Chen, AY ;
Daley, J ;
Thibault, GE .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1996, 16 (02) :169-177