Dataset Information

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

Objective

To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups.

Design setting and participants

We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses.

Results and limitations

Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (both p < 0.001). There was no evidence of differences in preferences for men aged 45-65 yr versus ≥65 yr, patients with mPC in different disease stages or with different adverse effect experiences, or general population participants with and without experiences with cancer. Latent class analyses suggested the presence of two groups strongly preferring either survival or the absence of adverse effects, with no specific characteristic clearly associated with belonging to either group. Potential biases due to participant selection, cognitive burden, and hypothetical choice scenarios may limit the study results.

Conclusions

Given the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC.

Patient summary

We examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Menges D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10175729 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Menges Dominik D Piatti Michela C MC Omlin Aurelius A Cathomas Richard R Benamran Daniel D Fischer Stefanie S Iselin Christophe C Küng Marc M Lorch Anja A Prause Lukas L Rothermundt Christian C O'Meara Stern Alix A Zihler Deborah D Lippuner Max M Braun Julia J Cerny Thomas T Puhan Milo A MA

European urology open science 20230322

<h4>Background</h4>Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups.<h4>Design setting and participants</h4>We conducted an online dis ...[more]

PMID: 37187724

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are increasing examples of linking data on healthcare resource use and patient outcomes from different sectors of health and social care systems. Linked data are generally anonymised, meaning in most jurisdictions there are no legal restrictions to their use in research conducted by public or private organisations. Secondary use of anonymised linked data is contentious in some jurisdictions but other jurisdictions are known for their use of linked data. The publics' perceptions of the acceptability of using linked data is likely to depend on a number of factors. This study aimed to quantify the preferences of the public to understand the factors that affected views about types of linked data and its use in two jurisdictions.MethodAn online discrete choice experiment (DCE) previously conducted in Scotland was adapted and replicated in Sweden. The DCE was designed, comprising five attributes, to elicit the preferences from a representative sample of the public in both jurisdictions. The five attributes (number of levels) were: type of researcher using linked data (four); type of data being linked (four); purpose of the research (three); use of profit from using linked data (four); who oversees the research (four). Each DCE contained 6 choice-sets asking respondents to select their preferred option from two scenarios or state neither were acceptable. Background questions included socio-demographics. DCE data were analysed using conditional and heteroskedastic conditional logit models to create forecasts of acceptability.ResultsThe study sample comprised members of the public living in Scotland (n = 1004) and Sweden (n = 974). All five attributes were important in driving respondents' choices. Swedish and Scottish preferences were mostly homogenous with the exception of 'who oversees the research using linked data', which had relatively less impact on the choices observed from Scotland. For a defined 'typical' linked data scenario, the probability (on average) of acceptance was 85.7% in Sweden and 82.4% in Scotland.ConclusionThis study suggests that the public living in Scotland and Sweden are open to using anonymised linked data in certain scenarios for research purposes but some caution is advisable if the anonymised linked data joins health to non-health data.

Project description:BackgroundDigital mental health interventions (DMHIs) are capable of closing gaps in the prevention and therapy of common mental disorders. Despite their proven effectiveness and approval for prescription, use rates remain low. The reasons include a lack of familiarity and knowledge as well as lasting concerns. Medical students were shown to have a comparatively higher risk for common mental disorders and are thus an important target group for raising awareness about DMHIs. At best, knowledge is already imparted during medical school using context-sensitive information strategies. Yet, little is known about medical students' information preferences regarding DMHIs.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore information preferences for DMHIs for personal use among medical students in Germany.MethodsA discrete choice experiment was conducted, which was developed using an exploratory sequential mixed methods research approach. In total, 5 attributes (ie, source, delivery mode, timing, recommendation, and quality criteria), each with 3 to 4 levels, were identified using formative research. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models to estimate preference weights and the relative importance of attributes. To identify subgroups of students varying in information preferences, we additionally performed a latent class analysis.ResultsOf 309 participants, 231 (74.8%) with reliable data were included in the main analysis (women: 217/309, 70.2%; age: mean 24.1, SD 4.0 y). Overall, the conditional logit model revealed that medical students preferred to receive information about DMHIs from the student council and favored being informed via social media early (ie, during their preclinic phase or their freshman week). Recommendations from other students or health professionals were preferred over recommendations from other users or no recommendations at all. Information about the scientific evidence base was the preferred quality criterion. Overall, the timing of information was the most relevant attribute (32.6%). Latent class analysis revealed 2 distinct subgroups. Class 1 preferred to receive extensive information about DMHIs in a seminar, while class 2 wanted to be informed digitally (via email or social media) and as early as possible in their studies.ConclusionsMedical students reported specific needs and preferences regarding DMHI information provided in medical school. Overall, the timing of information (early in medical education) was considered more important than the information source or delivery mode, which should be prioritized by decision makers (eg, members of faculties of medicine, universities, and ministries of education). Study findings suggest general and subgroup-specific information strategies, which could be implemented in a stepped approach. Easily accessible digital information may promote students' interest in DMHIs in the first step that might lead to further information-seeking behavior and the attendance of seminars about DMHIs in the second step.

Project description:IntroductionVarious treatment options are available for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. This study aimed to quantify how men with prostate cancer in the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, and Spain perceive the risks and benefits of hypothetical abiraterone acetate plus prednisone treatment and docetaxel-based chemotherapy treatment options.MethodsA targeted literature review, exploratory interviews with prostate cancer patients and oncologists, and pre-test interviews were used to develop a discrete choice experiments (DCE). The final DCE included 32 choice sets, selected using a main-effects orthogonal design, divided into two survey blocks. Paired profiles presented hypothetical treatments for prostate cancer through six attributes that could be presented at two or four levels each. Preference estimates were estimated using a conditional logit regression model. Preference results were stratified by cancer stage.ResultsA total of 152 participants (mean age 69 years) completed the DCE in the UK, Germany, and Spain. Treatment effectiveness was the main concern for the patients (difference in preference estimates between 8 and 32 months 1.443). Participants wanted to avoid pain that was not well controlled (preference dummy coding estimate - 1.157). Participants valued a change from an oral medication to an intravenous treatment (change in preference estimate - 0.416) more negatively than a change from a 1% to a 5% risk of infection (change in preference estimate - 0.313).ConclusionsThis study shows that treatment effectiveness and pain control were the most important attributes for patients with prostate cancer. These two attributes influenced more than 50% of their decision-making in this study. The risk of fatigue and mode of administration were least prioritised by patients. This study highlights the relative importance that Spanish, German, and British patients place on various aspects of treatment options for prostate cancer. Understanding patient preference and taking them into consideration shall help physicians when developing their treatment strategies for their patients.FundingJanssen.

Project description:Objectives: While several authors have suggested using a multi-criteria approach for orphan drug assessment and proposed lists of determinants of orphan drug value, studies on social preferences regarding these determinants remain limited. The current study aimed to identify preferences of the French general population regarding attributes characterizing the value of orphan drugs in a discrete choice experiment. Methods: The list of attributes was formed based on a literature search and was refined through expert interviews, a focus group, and a pilot study. The final list included nine attributes: disease-associated disability, disease-associated mortality, number of patients, availability of alternative treatments, treatment impact on disease disability, treatment impact on mortality, treatment safety, uncertainty around therapeutic effect, and annual treatment cost per patient. Members of the General Public were presented with 12 choice sets containing two drug profiles described according to the attributes and an option to fund neither of these treatments. The questionnaire was disseminated online. A conditional logit model with random effects was used to estimate the weight of each attribute. Results: A total of 958 persons participated in the study (48.7% male, mean age: 47.5 years). All attributes except for disease-associated disability had a statistically significant influence on the choices made by participants. The attribute with the highest weight was treatment impact on mortality (p < 0.0001), followed by uncertainty around therapeutic effect (p < 0.0001). The direction of results was generally consistent with intuition: patients preferred a drug with a larger impact on mortality, a larger impact on disability, with mild or no adverse events, with less uncertainty. Although patients appeared to prefer drugs with a lower budget impact, the relationship between patient preferences and costs was more complex. Conclusions: Preferences of the general public between orphan drugs are mostly driven by the impact on mortality and the degree of certainty regarding the available evidence.

Project description:Understanding public preferences concerning vaccination is critical to inform pandemic response strategies. To investigate Chinese adults' preferences regarding COVID-19 vaccine attributes, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey in 12,000 Chinese adults in June-July, 2021. Participants were requested to answer a series of discrete choice questions related to hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines. Using mixed logit models, our analysis revealed that participants had a higher preference for COVID-19 vaccines with longer duration of protection (coefficient: 1.272, 95% confidence interval [1.016 to 1.529]) and higher efficacy (coefficient: 1.063, [0.840, 1.287]). Conversely, participants demonstrated a lower preference associated with higher risk of rare but serious side-effects (coefficient: -1.158, [-1.359, -0.958]), oral administration (coefficient: -0.211, [-0.377, -0.046]), more doses (coefficient: -0.148, [-0.296, 0.000]) and imported origin (coefficient: -0.653, [-0.864, -0.443]). Moreover, preferences were heterogeneous by individual factors: highly educated participants were more sensitive to the negative vaccine attributes including price (coefficient -0.312, [-0.370, -0.253]) and imported vaccine (coefficient -0.941, [-1.186, -0.697]); there was also substantial heterogeneity in vaccine preferences with respect to age group, marital status, work status, income, chronic diagnosis history, COVID-19 vaccination history and geographic regions. As the first study of examining the public preferences for COVID-19 vaccine in China with a large nationwide sample of 12,000 adults, our results indicate that future vaccine should pose lower risk, possess longer protection period, have higher efficacy, be domestically produced, and have lower costs to increase the COVID-19 vaccination coverage. Our current study findings from this study provide insights and recommendations for not only COVID-19 vaccine design but also vaccine attribute preferences to increase vaccine uptake in potential future pandemics.

Dataset Information

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Background

Objective

Design setting and participants

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Results and limitations

Conclusions

Patient summary

Publications

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets