Preferences of Patients and Oncologists for Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treatment-Related Health States

Lisa M. Hess PhD , Daniel C. Malone PhD , Pamela G. Reed PhD , Grant Skrepnek PhD , Karen Weihs MD
{"title":"Preferences of Patients and Oncologists for Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treatment-Related Health States","authors":"Lisa M. Hess PhD ,&nbsp;Daniel C. Malone PhD ,&nbsp;Pamela G. Reed PhD ,&nbsp;Grant Skrepnek PhD ,&nbsp;Karen Weihs MD","doi":"10.1016/j.ehrm.2010.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The purpose of this study was to compare expected utility preferences of various health outcomes of chemotherapy treatment among ovarian-cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, ovarian cancer patients who were post-treatment (eg, under surveillance), and oncologists who treat this disease.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>Participants were asked to score 6 hypothetical ovarian cancer treatment-related health states using both a rating scale and the standard gamble. Scores were obtained in the range of 0.0 (death) to 1.0 (perfect health) for each hypothetical health state, with a difference of 0.10 being practically meaningful, and were analyzed by </span>analysis of variance.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seventy-five eligible participants were included in this study (41 ovarian-cancer patients and 34 oncologists). Patients and physicians reported similar responses in the rating scale exercise (<em>F</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.854, <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <span>.43). However, when the health states were presented with an element of uncertainty via the standard gamble exercise, patients who were under surveillance reported significantly different expected utilities of the health states from physicians and from patients who were receiving treatment, demonstrating greater risk aversion than the other groups (</span><em>F</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->4.270, <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.018).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This study suggests that there are significant differences in expected utility preferences among patients who are under surveillance as opposed to oncologists or patients receiving treatment, despite similarities in rating scale values. These findings suggest a need to further evaluate these differences in expected utility preferences in the context of decision in the setting of recurrent disease, where a patient under surveillance must make decisions related to re-initiation of therapy at a time when her preferences are likely to significantly differ from those of oncologists.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":88882,"journal":{"name":"Health outcomes research in medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":"Pages e51-e59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehrm.2010.02.001","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health outcomes research in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877131910000054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare expected utility preferences of various health outcomes of chemotherapy treatment among ovarian-cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, ovarian cancer patients who were post-treatment (eg, under surveillance), and oncologists who treat this disease.

Methods

Participants were asked to score 6 hypothetical ovarian cancer treatment-related health states using both a rating scale and the standard gamble. Scores were obtained in the range of 0.0 (death) to 1.0 (perfect health) for each hypothetical health state, with a difference of 0.10 being practically meaningful, and were analyzed by analysis of variance.

Results

Seventy-five eligible participants were included in this study (41 ovarian-cancer patients and 34 oncologists). Patients and physicians reported similar responses in the rating scale exercise (F = 0.854, P = .43). However, when the health states were presented with an element of uncertainty via the standard gamble exercise, patients who were under surveillance reported significantly different expected utilities of the health states from physicians and from patients who were receiving treatment, demonstrating greater risk aversion than the other groups (F = 4.270, P = .018).

Conclusions

This study suggests that there are significant differences in expected utility preferences among patients who are under surveillance as opposed to oncologists or patients receiving treatment, despite similarities in rating scale values. These findings suggest a need to further evaluate these differences in expected utility preferences in the context of decision in the setting of recurrent disease, where a patient under surveillance must make decisions related to re-initiation of therapy at a time when her preferences are likely to significantly differ from those of oncologists.

晚期卵巢癌患者和肿瘤学家对治疗相关健康状态的偏好
目的本研究的目的是比较接受化疗的卵巢癌患者、治疗后(如在监测下)的卵巢癌患者和治疗该疾病的肿瘤学家对化疗各种健康结果的预期效用偏好。方法要求参与者使用评定量表和标准赌博对6种假设的卵巢癌治疗相关健康状态进行评分。每个假设健康状态的得分范围为0.0(死亡)至1.0(完全健康),差异为0.10为有实际意义,并通过方差分析进行分析。结果本研究纳入75名符合条件的参与者(41名卵巢癌患者和34名肿瘤学家)。患者和医生在评定量表运动中报告的反应相似(F = 0.854, P = 0.43)。然而,当健康状态通过标准赌博练习呈现不确定因素时,接受监测的患者报告的健康状态预期效用与医生和接受治疗的患者显著不同,表现出比其他组更大的风险厌恶(F = 4.270, P = 0.018)。本研究表明,尽管评分量表值相似,但在接受监测的患者与肿瘤学家或接受治疗的患者之间,预期效用偏好存在显著差异。这些发现表明,有必要进一步评估在复发性疾病决策背景下预期效用偏好的差异,在这种情况下,接受监测的患者必须在她的偏好可能与肿瘤学家的偏好显著不同的时候做出与重新开始治疗相关的决定。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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