This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Stiggelbout, A. M. Articles by de Haes, J. C.J.M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stiggelbout, A. M. Articles by de Haes, J. C.J.M. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Patient Preference for Cancer Therapy: An Overview of Measurement Approaches

From the Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, and Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Address reprint to A.M. Stiggelbout, PhD, Medical Decision Making Unit, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands; email Stiggelbout{at}rullf2.medfac.leidenuniv.nl

PURPOSE: In the era of evidence-based medicine and shared decision making, the formal assessment of patient preference for treatments or treatment outcomes has attracted much attention. In this article, the two most common approaches to the evaluation of preference, ie, utility assessment and probability trade-off assessment, are described. The purpose is to provide clinicians with the background knowledge needed to interpret preference studies published in the literature and to judge whether the reported findings are relevant to their own patients.

METHODS: An overview is given of the methods used to assess utilities and probability trade-off scores. Evidence on determinants of such scores is presented. Examples from oncology are provided. Because experience with the treatment plays an important role as a determinant of preferences for both treatments and treatment outcomes, special attention is paid to the interpretation of studies in the light of subject selection. Directions for future research are suggested.

CONCLUSION: The choice of approach and the measuring instrument depend on the goal of the preference assessment. Normal psychologic processes, such as coping, adaptation, and cognitive dissonance reduction, cause patients who are about to undergo a therapy or have experienced a therapy to rate it more favorably than other patients do. This should be remembered when using evidence from the literature to inform patients or for patient decision making.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. R. Bossema, C. A. M. Marijnen, M. C. M. Baas-Thijssen, C. J. H. van de Velde, and A. M. Stiggelbout Evaluation of the Treatment Tradeoff Method in Rectal Cancer Patients: Is Surgery Preference Related to Outcome Utilities? Med Decis Making, November 1, 2008; 28(6): 888 - 898. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y.-C. T. Shih and M. T. Halpern Economic Evaluations of Medical Care Interventions for Cancer Patients: How, Why, and What Does it Mean? CA Cancer J Clin, July 1, 2008; 58(4): 231 - 244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. McLernon, J. Dillon, and P. T. Donnan Systematic Review: Health-State Utilities in Liver Disease: A Systematic Review Med Decis Making, July 1, 2008; 28(4): 582 - 592. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. D. Harrison, M. J. Solomon, J. M. Young, A. Meagher, P. Butow, G. Salkeld, G. Hruby, and S. Clarke Patient and Physician Preferences for Surgical and Adjuvant Treatment Options for Rectal Cancer Arch Surg, April 1, 2008; 143(4): 389 - 394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. R. Vetter A Primer on Health-Related Quality of Life in Chronic Pain Medicine Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2007; 104(3): 703 - 718. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. B. Elkin, M. E. Cowen, D. Cahill, M. Steffel, and M. W. Kattan Preference Assessment Method Affects Decision-Analytic Recommendations: A Prostate Cancer Treatment Example Med Decis Making, October 1, 2004; 24(5): 504 - 510. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. de Haes, M. Olschewski, M. Kaufmann, M. Schumacher, W. Jonat, and W. Sauerbrei Quality of Life in Goserelin-Treated Versus Cyclophosphamide + Methotrexate + Fluorouracil-Treated Premenopausal and Perimenopausal Patients With Node-Positive, Early Breast Cancer: The Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association Trialists Group J. Clin. Oncol., December 15, 2003; 21(24): 4510 - 4516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. T. Chung and R. W. Carlson Goals and Objectives in the Management of Metastatic Breast Cancer Oncologist, December 1, 2003; 8(6): 514 - 520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Cardoso, A. Di Leo, C. Lohrisch, C. Bernard, F. Ferreira, and M. J. Piccart Second and subsequent lines of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: what did we learn in the last two decades? Ann. Onc., February 20, 2002; 13(2): 197 - 207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Koller and W. Lorenz Quality of life: a deconstruction for clinicians J R Soc Med, January 10, 2002; 95(10): 481 - 488. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. N. Post, A. M. Stiggelbout, and P. P. Wakker The Utility of Health States After Stroke : A Systematic Review of the Literature Stroke, June 1, 2001; 32(6): 1425 - 1429. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]