Preferences for cancer treatments: an overview of methods and applications in oncology

被引：90

作者：

Blinman, P. ^{[1
]}

King, M. ^{[2
]}

Norman, R. ^{[3
]}

Viney, R. ^{[3
]}

Stockler, M. R. ^{[1
,4
,5
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Sydney, NHMRC Clin Trials Ctr, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

[2] Univ Sydney, Sch Psychol, Psychooncol Cooperat Res Grp PoCoG, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

[3] Univ Technol Sydney UTS, Ctr Hlth Econ Res & Evaluat CHERE, Sydney, NSW, Australia

[4] Royal Prince Alfred Hosp, Sydney Canc Ctr, Sydney, NSW, Australia

[5] Concord Hosp, Sydney, NSW, Australia

来源：

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY | 2012年 / 23卷 / 05期

基金：

英国医学研究理事会;

关键词：

decision-making methods; neoplasms; preferences; EARLY BREAST-CANCER; COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH STATE UTILITIES; ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS; PATIENT PREFERENCES; SURVIVAL BENEFITS; ENDOCRINE THERAPY; DECISION-MAKING; CARE;

D O I：

10.1093/annonc/mdr559

中图分类号：

R73 [肿瘤学];

学科分类号：

100214 [肿瘤学];

摘要：

This review provides cancer clinicians and researchers with an overview of methods for assessing preferences, with examples and recommendations for their application in oncology. Decisions about cancer treatments involve trade-offs between their relative benefits and harms. An individual's preference for a cancer treatment reflects their evaluation of the relative benefits and harms in comparison with a given alternative or alternatives. Methods of preference assessment include the ranking or rating scale, standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), visual analogue scale, discrete choice experiment (DCE), and multi-attribute utility instrument (MAUI). The choice of method depends on the purpose of preference assessment; the ranking or rating scale, SG, TTO, and DCEs are best suited to clinical decisions, whereas MAUIs are best suited to health policy decisions. Knowledge of patients' preferences for cancer treatments can better inform clinical decisions about patient management by enabling the tailoring of decisions to individual patients' values, attitudes, and priorities and health policy decisions through economic evaluations of cancer treatments and their suitability for coverage by health payers.

引用

页码：1104 / 1110

页数：7

共 58 条

[1]

[Anonymous], 1996, COST EFFECTIVENESS H, DOI DOI 10.1093/OSO/9780195108248.001.0001

[2]

[Anonymous], 1982, EC ASPECTS HLTH

[3]

[Anonymous], 2004, GUID METH TECHN APPR

[4]

[Anonymous], GUID PREP SUBM PHARM

[5]

Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis [J].

Arnold, David ;

Girling, Alan ;

Stevens, Andrew ;

Lilford, Richard .

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2009, 339 :385-388

[6]

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

[7]

Lung cancer clinicians' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: What makes it worthwhile? [J].

Blinman, Prunella ;

McLachlan, Sue-Anne ;

Nowak, Anna K. ;

Duric, Vlatka M. ;

Brown, Chris ;

Wright, Gavin ;

Millward, Michael ;

Fong, Kwun ;

Stockler, Martin R. .

LUNG CANCER, 2011, 72 (02) :213-218

[8]

Adjuvant chemotherapy for early colon cancer: What survival benefits make it worthwhile? [J].

Blinman, Prunella ;

Duric, Vlatka ;

Nowak, Anna K. ;

Beale, Philip ;

Clarke, Stephen ;

Briscoe, Karen ;

Boyce, Adam ;

Goldstein, David ;

Hudson, Malcolm ;

Stockler, Martin .

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2010, 46 (10) :1800-1807

[9]

Brazier J., 1999, J Health Serv Res Policy, V4, P174, DOI [DOI 10.1177/135581969900400310, 10.1177/135581969900400310]

[10]

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

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 →