A discrete choice experiment to assess cancer patients' preferences for when and how to make treatment decisions

Shared Decision Making in Oncology and Its Implementation in Cervical Cancer Management in the Philippines: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) is an approach where clinicians and patients make decisions together using the best available evidence. Although much studied, recognized to be ethically imperative, and recommended in international health policies, it remains poorly implemented. In the Philippines, there are limited studies on patient decision making preferences and SDM. Practical guidance on the implementation of SDM or use of patient decision aids (PtDAs) is often not detailed in existing national clinical practice guidelines in oncology.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of Philippine literature on SDM in oncology and an iterative review of international literature on the philosophy and methods of SDM, the utility and effectiveness of PtDAs, and the facilitators and barriers to implementation or usage. We contextualized our review to the cervical cancer management and health service delivery in the Philippines.

RESULTS

Local literature is limited to five scientific publications and two registered studies. International literature encompasses patient decisional preferences, the role of PtDAs and the standards for their development and evaluation, their effectiveness, and barriers and facilitators to their use in cancer-related decision making. We discussed the implications on the management of cervical cancer in the Philippines, challenges in health service delivery and standards, and SDM research.

CONCLUSION

Local SDM research is limited. Our preliminary experience in a multicenter clinical trial in Manila on PtDA use in the framework of SDM in cervical cancer suggest good patient and clinician acceptability. Challenges to implementation such as unfavorable financial situations, urgency of clinical decisions, low patient or caregiver educational attainment, and poor integration of multidisciplinary and SDM in organizational workflows will be important when implementing SDM in different settings.

Patient Decision Aid for Chemotherapy or Exclusion in Cisplatin-Intolerant Patients With Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: Development, Alpha Testing, and Peer Validation

PURPOSE

In locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC), adding cisplatin to radiotherapy (RT) improves survival but increases toxicity. Among patients with cisplatin contraindications, RT compliance may be compromised by toxicity because of cisplatin or a substitute. In shared decision making, a patient decision aid (PtDA) may decrease decisional conflict and attitudinal barriers, thereby improving treatment compliance.

METHODS

Following International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) guidelines, a steering committee of two radiation oncologists, a gynecologic oncologist, an oncology nurse, a clinical psychologist, a cancer survivor, and a caregiver developed the chemotherapy or exclusion in cisplatin-intolerant patients with LACC (CECIL) prototype, a PtDA for cisplatin-intolerant patients with LACC deciding about adding chemotherapy to RT. The prototype was alpha-tested using the e-Delphi method. The patient decision aid research group Ottawa Acceptability Questionnaire was used to evaluate comprehensibility, length, amount of information, neutrality, and overall suitability for decision making. The prototype was then independently evaluated by local internal, local external, and international reviewers using the IPDAS checklist version 4, which encompasses information, probabilities, values, guidance, development, evidence, disclosure, plain language, and evaluation.

RESULTS

Alpha testing showed high practitioner acceptability (all items with mean and median scores ≥4; overall mean score 4.70 of 5.00) and good patient acceptability (all items rated good to excellent). Content validation showed that the PtDA satisfied all IPDAS six qualifying and six certification criteria, with high overall mean score (3.63 of 4.00) for all 17 applicable quality criteria.

CONCLUSION

The CECIL prototype shows good practitioner and patient acceptability, and content validity on peer review. Clinical testing to determine its effectiveness in reducing decisional conflict is ongoing.

Personality characteristics associated with satisfaction with healthcare and the wish to complain

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that satisfaction with healthcare and complaint rates vary with patients' socio-demographic characteristics. Likewise, patient personality might influence the perception of health care; however, empirical research has been scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between health care user personality and satisfaction with care and urge to complain.

METHODS

This study is a randomized survey among Danish men aged 45 to 70 years (N = 6,756; 30% response rate) with hypothetical vignettes illustrating different courses of healthcare. Assuming they received the care described in vignettes, participants rated their satisfaction and wish to complain on a five-point Likert scale. Information on personality characteristics was obtained through self-reports using the standardized Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10).

RESULTS

In multivariate analyses, we found respondents with higher scores on the agreeableness dimension expressing greater satisfaction with care (Likert difference 0.06, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.07; p < 0.001) and decreased wish to complain (-0.07, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.05; p < 0.001) while high neuroticism scores were associated with less satisfaction (-0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.00, p = 0.012) and an increased wish to complain about healthcare (0.04, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.06, p < 0.001). Interaction analyses could demonstrate no statistically significant interaction between the level of patient involvement in decision making in the scenarios and the effect of personality on respondents' satisfaction and wish to complain. Generally, however, when adjusting for personality, respondents' satisfaction increased (P < 0.001) with greater patient involvement illustrated in case scenarios while the wish to complain decreased (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest low agreeableness and high neuroticism scores are associated with lower patient satisfaction with healthcare and increased wish to complain. Irrespective of personality, however, the wish to complain seems responsive to changes in patient involvement, underscoring the importance of inclusive healthcare communication.

Towards a novel approach guiding the decision-making process for anticancer treatment in patients with advanced cancer: framework for systemic anticancer treatment with palliative intent

Background

Weighing risks and benefits is currently the primary criterion for decisions regarding systemic anticancer treatment (SACT) in far advanced cancer patients, also in the modern immunotherapy- and molecular-targeted driven oncology. Decision aids rarely include substantially key concepts of early integrated palliative care (PC) and communication science. We compiled decisional factors (DFs) important for guiding the use of SACT with palliative intent (SACT-PI) and explored these DFs regarding their applicability in routine clinical care.

Patients and methods

Clinician (participants: n = 28) and patient (n = 15) focus groups were conducted in an integrated oncology and PC setting. Thematic analysis was used to identify DFs. A Delphi survey of clinicians ranked the importance of DFs in routine decision-making. DFs were aligned with elements of the typical decision-making process, resulting in an eight-step guide for making SACT-PI decisions in clinical practice.

Results

Eight focus groups revealed 55 DFs relating to established topics like providing information and risk–benefit analysis, as well as to PC topics like patients’ attitudes, beliefs, and hopes; patient–physician interaction; and physician attitudes. Agreement on the relative importance was reached for 34 (62%) of 55 DFs, assigned to five elements: patient/family, clinicians/system, patient-clinician-interaction, information/patient education, risk–benefit weighting/actual decision. These themes are embedded in a potential clinically useful SACT-PI Decision Framework, which includes eight steps: assess, educate, verify, reflect, discuss, weigh, pause, and decide.

Conclusions

The SACT-PI Decision Framework integrates subjective patient factors, interpersonal factors, and PC issues into decision-making. Our findings complement existing decision aids and prompt lists by framing DFs in the context of SACT-PI and enforce the decision ‘process’, not the decision act. Further research is needed to explore the relative importance of DFs in specific patient situations and test structured decision-making processes, such as our SACT-PI Decision Framework, against standard care.

•

Patient-centered decisions in advanced cancer care demand a stepwise decisional process, not a single decision act.

•

The decision process includes key palliative care domains, e.g. illness understanding, symptom control, or end-of-life preparation.

•

Patients’ attitudes, beliefs, hopes, patient–physician interaction, and physician attitudes demand structured observation.

•

The SACT-PI Decision Framework includes concrete steps: assess, educate, verify, reflect, discuss, weigh, pause, decide.

•

Interprofessionally working oncology clinicians may transform decision-making processes in oncology beyond decision aids.

Optimising diagnosis and post-diagnostic support for people living with dementia: geriatricians’ views

Background

Providing a timely and accurate diagnosis of dementia and delivering appropriate support following a diagnosis are essential to allow individuals and their families to plan for the future. Recent studies suggest that provision of diagnosis and post-diagnosis support is suboptimal. This study explored geriatricians’ views about strategies to improve quality of care across these domains.

Methods

An anonymous online survey of geriatricians and advanced trainees in one Australian state was conducted. An Expert Advisory Group of geriatricians, behavioural scientists and consumers proposed strategies to improve quality of care in relation to diagnosis and post-diagnosis support for people with dementia, which formed the survey items. Potential strategies were guided by, but not limited to, dementia and chronic care guidelines. Participants were asked the extent to which they agreed that implementing each of the proposed strategies would improve the quality of dementia care.

Results

Of 59 participants (response rate 42%), all agreed that improving accessibility of geriatricians would improve the accuracy and timeliness of diagnosis. Over 90% were supportive of strategies to improve capacity of general practitioners to accurately diagnose dementia. Between 97-100% agreed that information provided following diagnosis should encompass symptom progression, treatments, psychological supports, and advance care planning. Just over two-thirds thought that life expectancy should be discussed at this time. There were high levels of support for strategies already included in existing dementia care guidelines, however geriatricians also agreed with a range of possible strategies not currently included in guidelines.

Conclusions

Geriatricians perceive that timeliness and accuracy of dementia diagnosis may be improved by increasing access to geriatricians and training general practitioners in diagnosing dementia. They also believe it is appropriate to provide information at the time of diagnosis across a comprehensive range of areas, including potentially sensitive topics such as advance care planning. Future studies should explore the views of other groups of health care providers and consumers about these approaches. The strategies proposed should be considered for inclusion in future dementia care guidelines.

A qualitative study on patients' and their support persons' preferences for receiving one longer consultation or two shorter consultations when being informed about allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Background

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) is the only potentially curative treatment option for many patients with hematological disorders but it includes a significant risk of mortality and long-term morbidity. Many patients and their support persons feel overwhelmed when being informed about alloHSCT and may benefit from improvements in consultation style and timing.

Aims

To explore, qualitatively, in a sample of hematological cancer patients and their support persons, their preferences for receiving one longer consultation or two shorter consultations when being informed about alloHSCT. Participants’ perceptions of when and how different consultation styles should be offered were also examined.

Methods

Semi-structured face-to-face and phone interviews were conducted. A purposeful sampling frame was used. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

Results

Twenty patients and 13 support persons were recruited (consent rate: 96%, response rate: 91%). Most patients (60%) and support persons (62%) preferred two shorter consultations over one longer consultation. This helped them digest and recall the information provided, remember questions they had, involve significant others and search for additional information. Patients would have liked to be offered paper and pen to take notes, take a break after 30 min and have their understanding checked at the end of the first consultation, e.g. using question prompt lists. Some patients and support persons preferred both consultations to happen on the same day to reduce waiting times as well as travel times and costs. Others preferred having a few days in-between both consultations to better help them prepare the second consultation. Participants reported varying preferences for different consultation styles depending on personal and disease-related characteristics, such as age, health literacy level and previous treatment.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study to explore patients’ and their support persons’ preferences for having one longer consultation or two shorter consultations when being informed about alloHSCT. Receiving two shorter consultations may help patients process and recall the information provided and more actively involve their support persons. Clinicians should consider offering patients and their support persons to take a break after 30 min, provide paper and pen as well as question prompt lists.

Clinical assessment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a discrete choice experiment of patient preferences

PURPOSE

Up to 40% of cancer patients treated with neurotoxic chemotherapies experience chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Currently, there is no gold standard assessment tool for CIPN and there is little information in the literature on patient preferences for such assessments. This study aims to address this gap by identifying the features of a CIPN assessment tool that cancer patients value.

METHODS

An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey of neurotoxic chemotherapy-treated patients was implemented. Respondents completed 8 choice questions each. In each choice question, they chose between two hypothetical CIPN assessment tools, each described by six attributes: impact on quality of life; level of nerve damage detected; questionnaire length; physical tests involved; impact on clinic time; impact on care.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 117 respondents who had a range of cancers of which breast cancer was the most common. Respondents favoured an assessment tool that includes a physical test and that asks about impact on quality of life. Respondents were strongly opposed to clinicians, alone, deciding how the results of a CIPN assessment might influence their care especially their chemotherapy treatment. They were concerned about small changes in their CIPN, independent of clinical relevance. Respondents were willing to add half an hour to the usual clinic time to accommodate the CIPN assessment.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this DCE will assist clinicians in choosing an assessment tool for CIPN that is satisfactory to both clinician and patient.

Is greater patient involvement associated with higher satisfaction? Experimental evidence from a vignette survey

BACKGROUND

Patient-centredness is an essential quality parameter of modern healthcare. Accordingly, involving patients in decisions about care is required by international laws and an increasing number of medical codes and standards. These directives are based on ethical principles of autonomy. Still, there is limited empirical knowledge about the influence of patient involvement on satisfaction with care.

OBJECTIVE

In a large national vignette survey, we aimed to empirically test healthcare users' satisfaction with healthcare given different degrees of patient involvement, choices made and outcomes.

METHODS

A web-based cross-sectional survey distributed to a randomised sample of men in Denmark aged 45-70 years. Case vignettes used prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for early detection of prostate cancer as a clinical model. Using a 5-point Likert scale, we measured respondents' satisfaction with care in scenarios which differed in the amount of patient involvement (ranging from no involvement, through involvement with neutral or nudged information, to shared decision-making), the decision made (PSA test or no PSA test) and clinical outcomes (no cancer detected, detection of treatable cancer and detection of non-treatable cancer).

RESULTS

Participating healthcare users tended to be more satisfied with healthcare in scenarios illustrating greater levels of patient involvement. Participants were positive towards nudging in favour of the intervention but patient involvement through shared decision-making obtained the highest satisfaction ratings (Likert rating 3.81 without any involvement vs 4.07 for shared decision-making, p<0.001). Greater involvement also had an ameliorating effect on satisfaction if a non-treatable cancer was later diagnosed.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides empirical support for the hypothesis that greater patient involvement in healthcare decision-making improves satisfaction with care irrespective of decisions made and clinical outcomes. Overall satisfaction with the care illustrated was highest when decisions were reached through shared decision-making.

A Study of Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Western China: A Discrete-Choice Experiment

Background: Non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common histologic type of lung cancer, accounting for 70–85% of all lung cancers. It has brought a heavy burden of disease and financial cost to families, society, and the nation of China. Patients have differing preferences for treatment because of their varying physical conditions and socioeconomic backgrounds, which ultimately affects the choice of treatment as well as treatment outcomes. For better and sustained health outcomes, it is vital to understand patients' preferences. We can then provide medical services to match these preferences and needs rather than basing treatment on our clinical viewpoints alone.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to elicit patient preferences for treatment using a discrete-choice experiment and to explore the value/importance that patients place on the different attributes of treatment in order to provide a basis for clinical decision making and patient health management.

Methods: The study was conducted with NSCLC patients from three typical hospitals in southwestern China. After identifying patient-relevant treatment attributes via literature review and qualitative semi structured interviews, a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) including seven patient-relevant attributes was conducted using a fractional factorial SAS design. The empiric data analyses of patients were performed using mixed logit models.

Results: NSCLC patients (N = 202) completed a survey via a face-to-face interview. Among the seven attributes, the following were considered important: progression-free survival, disease control rate, cost, weakness/fatigue, and nausea/vomiting; mode of administration and rash were considered less important. A clear preference for an increase in progression-free survival and disease control rate was demonstrated. Compared with 5 months of progression-free survival, respondents were willing to pay more (19,860 RMB) for 11 months of progression-free survival (coef.: 0.687). Compared with a 60% rate of disease control, respondents were willing to pay more (19,940 RMB) for a 90% rate of disease control (coef.: 0.690).

Conclusions: This study demonstrates the value of DCEs in determining patient preferences for the treatment of NSCLC. The results indicate that not only efficacy factors (such as progression-free survival and disease control rate) were considered but also other factors (such as side effects and treatment costs) and trade-offs between attributes were held to be important. These results are in accord with expectations and can provide evidence for more effective and efficient treatment results. Furthermore, the current results can increase benefits if the presented therapies can be designed, assessed, and chosen based on patient-oriented findings.

Geriatric principles for patients with cancer

Cancer is primarily a disease of older persons. Given the heterogeneity of aging, physiological age, rather than chronological age, better expresses the cumulative effect of environmental, medical, and psychosocial stressors, which modifies life expectancy. Comprehensive geriatric assessment, a tool that helps ascertain the physiological age of older individuals, is the gold standard for assessing older adults with cancer. Several international organizations recommend using the geriatric assessment domains to identify unrecognized health problems that can interfere with treatment and predict adverse health-related outcomes, aiding complex treatment decision making. More recently, it has been shown that geriatric assessment-guided interventions improve quality of life and mitigate treatment toxicity without compromising survival. In this review, we discuss the role of comprehensive geriatric assessment in cancer care for older adults and provide the reader with useful information to assess potential treatment risks and benefits, anticipate complications, and plan interventions to better care for older people with cancer.

An international discrete choice experiment assessing patients' preferences for disease-modifying therapy attributes in multiple sclerosis

Aim: This discrete choice experiment aimed to assess patients' preferences for treatment attributes in multiple sclerosis (MS). Patients & methods: Patients with relapsing-remitting MS completed an online survey assessing treatment preferences. Descriptive statistical analysis and discrete choice hierarchical Bayesian modeling were performed. Results: Across the overall sample (n = 485), dosing regimen, efficacy and safety were equally important. Within the whole sample, and among those diagnosed <10 years ago, intravenous infusion ≤3 times/year was the preferred dosing regimen; among patients diagnosed ≥10 years ago it was preferred equally to oral treatments. Patients were more willing to accept frequent but mild over rare but severe side effects. Conclusion: Several factors influence patient preferences for MS treatments and must be considered in patient-centered care.

Cancer patient preferences for the provision of information regarding emotional concerns in relation to medical procedures: A discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

To explore the preferences of people with cancer regarding the timing and format of information provision about emotional concerns that may occur when undergoing medical procedures.

METHODS

Eligible cancer survivors were mailed a survey containing discrete choice scenarios examining their timing and format preferences for information about potential emotional concerns associated with an upcoming hypothetical medical procedure.

RESULTS

Of 356 eligible patients, 271 (76 %) completed the survey. Both face-to-face discussion and written materials were preferred as the mode of information delivery over access to a website. In order of descending preference, participants preferred to receive the information 1 week, 3 days and the day of the procedure. There were no differences in preferences for timing or format between subgroups based on age, gender, education and cancer type.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated that cancer patients prefer receiving information about emotional concerns that might be experienced as part of a medical procedure in either written or via face-to-face format, and one week before the procedure.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to provide patient-centred care, clinicians and the healthcare system more broadly should consider patient preferences for information delivery about upcoming medical procedures. INFORMATION: preparation for medical procedures; discrete choice; oncology; patient preference; emotional response.

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.

Men's view on participation in decisions about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening: patient and public involvement in development of a survey

Background

Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) screening for early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) may prevent some cancer deaths, but also may miss some cancers or lead to unnecessary and potentially harmful treatment. Therefore, involving patients in decision-making about PSA screening is recommended. However, we know little about the attitude of men regarding participation in decisions about PSA screening and how to assess such attitudes. The purpose of this paper is to describe patient and public participation in the development of a national, web-based case vignette survey for studying men’s view on participation in decision-making about PSA screening.

Methods

The project group developed a first draft plan for the survey, its vignettes and choice of measurements. This included multiple vignette variants representing various levels of patient participation in decision-making about PSA screening with different outcomes. Additionally, it included questions on respondents’ satisfaction with imagined courses of health care, their propensity to initiate a malpractice complaint, their own health care experiences, socio-demography, personality, and preferences for control regarding health care decision-making. Following feedback from a workshop with academic peers on the draft plan, a group of 30 adult men was engaged to help develop case vignette versions and questionnaire items by providing feedback on structure, comprehension, response patterns, and time required to complete the survey. Furthermore, a panel of three patients with PCa experience was assembled to assist development through a separate review-and-feedback process.

Results

Based on reviews of survey drafts, the large group made further suggestions about construction of the survey (e.g. clarification and modification of case vignette versions, deletion of items and adjustment of wording, instructions to guide respondents, replacement of technical terms, and optimization of sequence of survey elements). The patient panel ensured fine-tuning of vignette versions and questionnaire items and helped review the internet version of the survey.

Conclusions

Patient and public involvement during various phases of the survey development helped modify and refine survey structure and content. The survey exemplifies a way to measure health care users’ satisfaction with imagined courses of health care and wish to complain, taking into account their characteristics.

Not having adequate time to make a treatment decision can impact on cancer patients' care experience: Results of a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

We examined whether patients reporting not having adequate time to make a treatment decision is associated with discordance between their preferred and perceived involvement in decision making.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study involving Australian outpatients attending five medical or radiation oncology units. Logistic regression modelling was conducted.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-three patients participated. Patients who reported not having adequate time to make their last important treatment decision had significantly higher odds of experiencing discordance between their preferred and perceived involvement in this decision, compared to those patients who reported having adequate time (OR: 2.76; 95% CI: 1.01-7.55; p = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

Patients should receive adequate time when making cancer treatment decisions. This may help patients "digest" and use the information they received, and become involved in decision making, to the extent they desire. Future research should further investigate what patients consider adequate time for decision making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Doctors should assess patients' preferences for the amount of time they prefer when making a treatment decision and tailor care accordingly. Offering patients two consultations with some time to think about their options in-between these consultations may be one method in achieving this.

Novel application of discrete choice experiment methodology to understand how clinicians around the world triage palliative care needs: A research protocol

Objective

As referrals to specialist palliative care (PC) grow in volume and diversity, an evidence-based triage method is needed to enable services to manage waiting lists in a transparent, efficient, and equitable manner. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have not to date been used among PC clinicians, but may serve as a rigorous and efficient method to explore and inform the complex decision-making involved in PC triage. This article presents the protocol for a novel application of an international DCE as part of a mixed-method research program, ultimately aiming to develop a clinical decision-making tool for PC triage.

Method

Five stages of protocol development were undertaken: (1) identification of attributes of interest; (2) creation and (3) execution of a pilot DCE; and (4) refinement and (5) planned execution of the final DCE.

Result

Six attributes of interest to PC triage were identified and included in a DCE that was piloted with 10 palliative care practitioners. The pilot was found to be feasible, with an acceptable cognitive burden, but refinements were made, including the creation of an additional attribute to allow independent analysis of concepts involved. Strategies for recruitment, data collection, analysis, and modeling were confirmed for the final planned DCE.

Significance of results

This DCE protocol serves as an example of how the sophisticated DCE methodology can be applied to health services research in PC. Discussion of key elements that improved the utility, integrity, and feasibility of the DCE provide valuable insights.

Support persons' preferences for the type of consultation and the format of information provided when making a cancer treatment decision

Objective

Cancer patients and their support persons commonly feel overwhelmed when being confronted with their diagnosis and treatment options. We used a DCE to examine patients’ and support persons’ preferences for: (i) attending one 40 min consultation or two 20 min consultations when making a cancer treatment decision; and for (ii) receiving additional information in written form only or in both written and online forms. Here we focus on support persons’ preferences and whether they differ from patients’ preferences.

Results

159 adult medical oncology patients and 64 of their support persons took part in this study. Participants were presented with a set of hypothetical scenarios and asked to indicate their most and least preferred scenario. 92% of support persons (n = 59) completed the DCE. Most preferred to receive two consultations along with written and online information (n = 30, 51%). This was the only scenario that was chosen by statistically significantly more support persons (p =0.037). The proportions of patients and support persons choosing each scenario did not differ significantly from each other (p >0.05). Our findings suggest that when making cancer treatment decisions, clinicians should consider offering patients and support persons written and online information, combined with two shorter consultations.