The Value of Hope in Cancer Care: Risk Preference and Heterogeneity in Cancer Patients and the General Public.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Jihyung Hong, Eun-Young Bae, Shuye Yu
{"title":"The Value of Hope in Cancer Care: Risk Preference and Heterogeneity in Cancer Patients and the General Public.","authors":"Jihyung Hong, Eun-Young Bae, Shuye Yu","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To quantify the value of hope in cancer care and examine age as a potential modifier, comparing patients and the general public.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A discrete choice experiment was conducted in 2024 with 426 cancer patients diagnosed within the past 5 years and 2048 general public members without prior cancer experience in South Korea. Choice options comprised treatment effects, health status, and out-of-pocket costs. Treatment effects included a fixed 2-year survival option and 4 risk options offering 10% chances of extended survival (5 or 10 years) paired with 10% chances of minimum survival (3 months or 1 year), with varying survival durations for the remaining 80% to yield the same expected survival. Each participant completed 10 choice tasks, repeated for hypothetical ages of 5 and 70. Mixed logit and latent class analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups, particularly cancer patients, positively valued treatments with 10% chances of 10-year and 1-year survival over certainty. The monetary value of hope for this option was $12 445 for patients, about double that for the general public ($5985). These values increased to $51 103 and $35 609, respectively, for age 5, but were much lower for age 70. Conversely, the certainty option was preferred over treatments with 10% chances of 5-year and 3-month survival. Latent class analyses revealed substantial preference heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The value of hope represents a meaningful aspect of treatment preferences, especially in pediatric contexts. However, substantial preference heterogeneity poses challenges to effectively incorporating hope into health technology assessments, particularly in publicly funded healthcare systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2166","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To quantify the value of hope in cancer care and examine age as a potential modifier, comparing patients and the general public.

Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted in 2024 with 426 cancer patients diagnosed within the past 5 years and 2048 general public members without prior cancer experience in South Korea. Choice options comprised treatment effects, health status, and out-of-pocket costs. Treatment effects included a fixed 2-year survival option and 4 risk options offering 10% chances of extended survival (5 or 10 years) paired with 10% chances of minimum survival (3 months or 1 year), with varying survival durations for the remaining 80% to yield the same expected survival. Each participant completed 10 choice tasks, repeated for hypothetical ages of 5 and 70. Mixed logit and latent class analyses were performed.

Results: Both groups, particularly cancer patients, positively valued treatments with 10% chances of 10-year and 1-year survival over certainty. The monetary value of hope for this option was $12 445 for patients, about double that for the general public ($5985). These values increased to $51 103 and $35 609, respectively, for age 5, but were much lower for age 70. Conversely, the certainty option was preferred over treatments with 10% chances of 5-year and 3-month survival. Latent class analyses revealed substantial preference heterogeneity.

Conclusions: The value of hope represents a meaningful aspect of treatment preferences, especially in pediatric contexts. However, substantial preference heterogeneity poses challenges to effectively incorporating hope into health technology assessments, particularly in publicly funded healthcare systems.

希望在癌症治疗中的价值:癌症患者和普通大众的风险偏好和异质性。
目的:量化希望在癌症治疗中的价值,并检验年龄作为一个潜在的修饰因素,比较患者和公众。方法:于2024年对426名近5年内确诊的韩国癌症患者和2048名没有癌症经历的普通民众进行离散选择实验。选择选项包括治疗效果、健康状况和自付费用。治疗效果包括一个固定的2年生存选项和四个风险选项,提供10%的延长生存机会(5年或10年)和10%的最低生存机会(3个月或1年),剩余80%的生存时间不同,以产生相同的预期生存。每个参与者完成10个选择任务,在假设的5岁和70岁的年龄重复。进行混合logit和潜在类分析(LCA)。结果:两组患者,尤其是癌症患者,对10年和1年生存率均为10%的治疗给予积极评价。对患者来说,这种选择的希望价值是12,445美元,大约是普通公众(5,985美元)的两倍。对于5岁的人来说,这两个数字分别增加到51103美元和35609美元,但对于70岁的人来说,这个数字要低得多。相反,确定性选择比5年和3个月生存率为10%的治疗更受欢迎。LCA显示了显著的偏好异质性。结论:希望的价值代表了治疗偏好的一个有意义的方面,特别是在儿科环境中。然而,巨大的偏好异质性对有效地将“希望”纳入卫生技术评估提出了挑战,特别是在公共资助的卫生保健系统中。
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
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
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