Valuing quality of life for economic evaluations in cancer: navigating multiple methods.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Carrie-Anne Ng, Richard De Abreu Lourenco, Rosalie Viney, Richard Norman, Madeleine T King, Nancy Kim, Brendan Mulhern
{"title":"Valuing quality of life for economic evaluations in cancer: navigating multiple methods.","authors":"Carrie-Anne Ng, Richard De Abreu Lourenco, Rosalie Viney, Richard Norman, Madeleine T King, Nancy Kim, Brendan Mulhern","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2393332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Utility values offer a quantitative means to evaluate the impact of novel cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL). However, the multiple methods available for valuing QoL present challenges in selecting the most appropriate method across different contexts.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>This review provides cancer clinicians and researchers with an overview of methods to value QoL for economic evaluations, including standalone and derived preference-based measures (PBMs) and direct preference elicitation methods. Recent developments are described, including the comparative performance of cancer-specific PBMs versus generic PBMs, measurement of outcomes beyond health-related QoL, and increased use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Recommendations and considerations are provided to guide the choice of method for cancer research.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>We foresee continued adoption of the QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in cancer clinical trials given the extensive use of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G in cancer research. While these cancer-specific PBMs offer the convenience of eliciting utility values without needing a standalone PBM, researchers should consider potential limitations if they intend to substitute them for generic PBMs. As the field advances, there is a greater need for consensus on the approach to selection and integration of various methods in cancer clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2393332","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Utility values offer a quantitative means to evaluate the impact of novel cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL). However, the multiple methods available for valuing QoL present challenges in selecting the most appropriate method across different contexts.

Areas covered: This review provides cancer clinicians and researchers with an overview of methods to value QoL for economic evaluations, including standalone and derived preference-based measures (PBMs) and direct preference elicitation methods. Recent developments are described, including the comparative performance of cancer-specific PBMs versus generic PBMs, measurement of outcomes beyond health-related QoL, and increased use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Recommendations and considerations are provided to guide the choice of method for cancer research.

Expert opinion: We foresee continued adoption of the QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in cancer clinical trials given the extensive use of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G in cancer research. While these cancer-specific PBMs offer the convenience of eliciting utility values without needing a standalone PBM, researchers should consider potential limitations if they intend to substitute them for generic PBMs. As the field advances, there is a greater need for consensus on the approach to selection and integration of various methods in cancer clinical trials.

癌症经济评估中的生活质量估价:驾驭多种方法。
简介效用值为评估新型癌症治疗方法对患者生活质量(QoL)的影响提供了一种量化方法。然而,目前有多种方法可用于评价 QoL,这给在不同情况下选择最合适的方法带来了挑战:本综述为癌症临床医生和研究人员概述了经济评估中的 QoL 估值方法,包括独立的和衍生的基于偏好的测量方法 (PBM) 以及直接的偏好激发方法。介绍了最近的发展情况,包括癌症特异性 PBM 与通用 PBM 的性能比较、健康相关 QoL 以外的结果测量,以及更多地使用离散选择实验来激发偏好。我们还提出了一些建议和注意事项,以指导癌症研究方法的选择:专家意见:鉴于 EORTC QLQ-C30 和 FACT-G 在癌症研究中的广泛应用,我们预计 QLU-C10D 和 FACT-8D 将继续在癌症临床试验中采用。虽然这些针对癌症的 PBM 为激发效用值提供了便利,而不需要独立的 PBM,但如果研究人员打算用它们替代通用的 PBM,则应考虑其潜在的局限性。随着该领域的发展,人们更需要就癌症临床试验中各种方法的选择和整合达成共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信