Oncology patient preferences for depression care: A discrete choice experiment

Incorporating respondent-driven sampling into web-based discrete choice experiments: preferences for COVID-19 mitigation measures

To slow the spread of COVID-19, most countries implemented stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and other nonpharmaceutical mitigation strategies. To understand individual preferences for mitigation strategies, we piloted a web-based Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS) approach to recruit participants from four universities in three countries to complete a computer-based Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). Use of these methods, in combination, can serve to increase the external validity of a study by enabling recruitment of populations underrepresented in sampling frames, thus allowing preference results to be more generalizable to targeted subpopulations. A total of 99 students or staff members were invited to complete the survey, of which 72% started the survey (n = 71). Sixty-three participants (89% of starters) completed all tasks in the DCE. A rank-ordered mixed logit model was used to estimate preferences for COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical mitigation strategies. The model estimates indicated that participants preferred mitigation strategies that resulted in lower COVID-19 risk (i.e. sheltering-in-place more days a week), financial compensation from the government, fewer health (mental and physical) problems, and fewer financial problems. The high response rate and survey engagement provide proof of concept that RDS and DCE can be implemented as web-based applications, with the potential for scale up to produce nationally-representative preference estimates.

Patient Preferences for Anxiety and Depression Screening in Cancer Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVES

Screening for anxiety and depression in cancer care is recommended, as identification is the first step in managing anxiety and depression. Nevertheless, patient preferences for anxiety and depression screening in cancer care are unknown. The objective of this study was to investigate and identify the aspects of an anxiety and depression screening program cancer patients value most, to inform decision-makers about ways to improve patient uptake and ultimately, the provision of patient-centered care.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was designed and implemented within an Australian cancer population sample. Participants were presented with a series of hypothetical screening programs labeled as "screening program 1" and "screening program 2" and were asked to choose their preferred one. The discrete choice experiment was administered using an online survey platform. A mixed logit and a latent class analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 294) preferred screening to be conducted by a cancer nurse, face-to-face, and at regular intervals (monthly or every 3 months). Participants also preferred follow-up care to be delivered by mental health professionals embedded within the cancer care team. Factors that influenced preferences were the low cost and short waiting times for access to care.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients prefer cancer services with integrated mental healthcare services. To maximize patient uptake, anxiety and depression screening programs should be routinely offered, delivered by oncology healthcare staff in a face-to-face format, and, postscreening, to be care for by mental health professionals embedded within the cancer service.

Preferences for life expectancy discussions following diagnosis with a life-threatening illness: a discrete choice experiment

PURPOSE

To explore in a sample of adult cancer patients: (1) the relative influence of initiation source, information format and consultation format on preferred approach to life expectancy disclosure using a discrete choice experiment (DCE); and (2) whether patient age, cancer type and perceived prognosis were associated with preferences within the three attributes.

METHODS

A DCE survey of adult solid tumour and haematological cancer patients. Participants chose between three hypothetical scenarios about life expectancy disclosure consisting of three attributes: initiation source (i.e. doctor versus patient-initiated discussion), information content (i.e. estimate presented as best-worst-typical length of life case scenario versus median survival time) and consultation format (i.e. two 20-min versus one 40-min consultation). Respondents selected their most preferred scenario within each question.

RESULTS

Three hundred and two patients completed the DCE (78% consent rate). Initiation source was the most influential predictor of patient choice. More preferred a doctor deliver life expectancy information as soon as it is available rather than waiting for the patient to ask (59% vs 41% z = - 7.396, p < 0.01). More patients preferred the two 20-min rather than the one 40-min consultation format (55% vs 45%, z = 4.284, p < 0.01). Information content did not influence choice. Age, cancer type, and patient-perceived prognosis were not associated with preferences.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professionals should assess cancer patients' preferences for engaging in life expectancy discussions as soon as they have this information, and ensure patients have adequate time to consider the information they receive, seek additional information and involve others if they wish.