Patient Preferences for Pain Management in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Attribute Development in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Methods and Techniques to Inform Quantitative Instruments

OBJECTIVES

This review sought to identify the qualitative methods and techniques that researchers have used in the past decade to develop attributes and inform health-related discrete choice experiments (DCEs) surveys from a patient perspective.

METHODS

The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for reporting systematic reviews. An adapted appraisal tool following guidelines for reporting qualitative research for quantitative instruments and criteria for attribute development in DCEs was applied for quality assessment and data extraction. A narrative approach was used to synthesize data. This examination included consideration of issues pertaining to sampling, data collection, data analysis, attribute list reduction, wording, methodological adaptations to capture patient preferences, and testing the pre-experimental design decisions of the DCE survey.

RESULTS

Of 8505 articles identified for abstract screening, 680 were included for full-text screening, 36 of which met the inclusion criteria. Practices to improve methodological robustness included pre-data collection materials to inform instruments, data collection methods specific for decision-making scenarios, purposeful selection of data analysis methods to address the research question, and participants' involvement in reducing the list of attributes. Examples of methodological adaptations for patients were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

DCEs have the potential to become a mixed-method approach in which the qualitative phase informs a reduced list of attributes for a survey, serves the predesign decisions of the experiment by testing trade-offs, overlapping, understandability, face, and content validity and provides explanations of the quantitative results. Establishing guidelines for using qualitative methods for DCE attribute development may help to broadly enhance the methodological robustness of DCEs.

Preferences for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

OBJECTIVES

Understanding what matters most to patients and their caregivers is fundamental to delivering high-quality care. This systematic review aimed to characterize and appraise the evidence from discrete choice experiments eliciting preferences for palliative care.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken for publications up until August 2022. Data were synthesized narratively. Thematic analysis was applied to categorize attributes into groups. Attribute development, frequency, and relative importance were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare outcomes between patient and proxy respondents.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies spanning 11 countries were included; 59% of studies solely considered preferences for patients with cancer. A range of respondent groups were represented including patients (76%) and proxies (caregivers [35%], health providers [12%], and the public [18%]). A total of 117 individual attributes were extracted and thematically grouped into 8 broad categories and 21 subcategories. Clinical outcomes including quality of life, length of life, and pain control were the most frequently reported attributes, whereas attributes relating to psychosocial components were largely absent. Both patients and proxy respondents prioritized pain control over additional survival time. Nevertheless, there were differences between respondent cohorts in the emphasis on other attributes such as access to care, timely information, and low risk of adverse effects (prioritized by patients), as opposed to cost, quality, and delivery of care (prioritized by proxies).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review underscores the vital role of pain control in palliative care; in addition, it shed light on the complexity and relative strength of preferences for various aspects of care from multiple perspectives, which is useful in developing personalized, patient-centered models of care for individuals nearing the end of life.

A Longitudinal Evaluation of the Preferences of Patients With Advanced Cancer for Quality of Life and Survival in Malaysia: A Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to quantify the preferences of patients with advanced cancer for quality of life (QoL) outcomes versus survival extension in Malaysia. The secondary aim of this study is to explore the change in preferences over time.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was developed to include 7 attributes valued in cancer management: physical, psychological and social functioning, pain control, survival, place of death, and cost. Patients were recruited via convenience sampling from 2 Malaysian public hospitals. The survey questionnaire was administered to patients within 6 months of their cancer diagnosis with a follow-up 3 months later. Conditional logit regression was used to estimate the preference weight, relative attribute importance, and willingness to pay.

RESULTS

One hundred valid responses were collected at baseline and 45 at follow-up. Respondents placed higher values on QoL improvements from severe to moderate or mild levels and to achieve home death over survival extension from 6 to 18 months. However, additional improvements (from moderate to mild) in some of the QoL outcomes were not valued as highly as life extension from 12 to 18 months, showing that it was vital for patients to avoid being in "severe" health dysfunction. Improving physical dysfunction from severe to mild yielded 3 times as much value as additional 1-year survival. After 3 months, the respondents' preferences changed significantly, with increased relative attribute importance of physical functioning, pain control, and cost.

CONCLUSIONS

As QoL outcomes are valued more than survival, palliative care should be introduced as early as possible to alleviate suffering related to advanced cancer.

Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full-text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format.

RESULTS

We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full-text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co-design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co-authors of this manuscript.

Patient Preferences for Rescue Medications in the Treatment of Breakthrough Cancer Pain

OBJECTIVE

The discrete choice experiment (DCE) is conducted in this study to discuss Chinese cancer patients' risk-benefit preferences for rescue medications (RD) and their willingness to pay (WTP) in the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP).

METHOD

Through literature reviews, specialist consultation, and patient surveys, this work finally included five attributes in the DCE questionnaire, i.e., the remission time of breakthrough pain, adverse reactions of the digestive system, adverse reactions of the neuropsychiatric system, administration routes, and drug costs (estimating patients' WTP). The alternative-specific conditional logit model is used to analyze patients' preferences and WTP for each attribute and its level and to assess the sociodemographic impact and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 134 effective questionnaires were collected from January, 1 to April, 5 in 2022. Results show that the five attributes all have a significant impact on cancer patients' choice of "rescue medications" (P<0.05). Among these attributes, the remission time after drug administration (10.0; 95%CI 8.5-11.5) is the most important concern for patients, followed by adverse reactions of the digestive system (8.5; 95%CI 7.0-10.0), adverse reactions of the neuropsychiatric system (2.9; 95%CI 1.4-4.3), and administration routes (0.9; 95%CI 0-1.8). The respondents are willing to spend 1182 yuan (95%CI 605-1720 yuan) per month for "rescue medications" to take effect within 15 minutes and spend 1002 yuan (95%CI 605-1760 yuan) per month on reducing the incidence of drug-induced adverse reactions in the digestive system to 5%.

CONCLUSION

For Chinese cancer patients, especially those with moderate/severe cancer pain, the priority is to relieve the BTcP more rapidly and reduce adverse drug reactions more effectively. This study indicates these patients' expectations for the quick control of breakthrough pain and their emphasis on the reduction of adverse reactions. These findings are useful for doctors, who are encouraged to communicate with cancer patients about how to better alleviate the BTcP.

Identifying participants' preferences for modifiable chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy prevention clinical trial factors: an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis

PURPOSE

There are no recommended treatments for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) prevention. Recruitment to CIPN prevention clinical trials is challenging because it is difficult to enroll patients between the time of cancer diagnosis and the initiation of neurotoxic chemotherapy. The purpose of this exploratory-sequential mixed-methods study was to determine patients' preferences that could affect the choice to participate in CIPN prevention clinical trials.

METHODS

First, twenty cognitive interviews were conducted with adults who completed less than three neurotoxic chemotherapy infusions to clarify clinical trial attributes and levels thought to be important to patients when deciding whether to enroll in CIPN prevention trials (i.e., type of treatment, clinical tests, reimbursement, survey delivery; length of visits, timing of follow-up, when to begin treatment). Second, another eighty-eight patients completed an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis survey that incorporated the finalized attributes and levels. Each level was assigned a part-worth utility score using Hierarchical Bayes Estimation. The relative importance of each attribute was calculated.

RESULTS

The attributes with the highest relative importance values were type of treatment (27.1%) and length of study visits (20.2%). The preferred levels included non-medicine treatment (53.49%), beginning treatment after experiencing CIPN (60.47%), email surveys (63.95%), assessments that include surveys and clinical exams (39.53%), under 30-min visits (44.19%), $50/week reimbursement (39.53%), and 1-month post-chemotherapy follow-up visits (32.56%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' preferences for participation may be included in the design of future CIPN prevention clinical trials to potentially bolster study enrollment.

Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Accounting for preference heterogeneity is a growing analytical practice in health-related discrete choice experiments (DCEs). As heterogeneity may be examined from different stakeholder perspectives with different methods, identifying the breadth of these methodological approaches and understanding the differences are major steps to provide guidance on good research practices.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to systematically summarize current practices that account for preference heterogeneity based on the published DCEs related to healthcare.

METHODS

This systematic review is part of the project led by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) health preference research special interest group. The systematic review conducted systematic searches on the PubMed, OVID, and Web of Science databases, as well as on two recently published reviews, to identify articles. The review included health-related DCE articles published between 1 January 2000 and 30 March 2020. All the included articles also presented evidence on preference heterogeneity analysis based on either explained or unexplained factors or both.

RESULTS

Overall, 342 of the 2202 (16%) articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for extraction. The trend showed that analyses of preference heterogeneity increased substantially after 2010 and that such analyses mainly examined heterogeneity due to observable or unobservable factors in individual characteristics. Heterogeneity through observable differences (i.e., explained heterogeneity) is identified among 131 (40%) of the 342 articles and included one or more interactions between an attribute variable and an observable characteristic of the respondent. To capture unobserved heterogeneity (i.e., unexplained heterogeneity), the studies largely estimated either a mixed logit (n = 205, 60%) or a latent-class logit (n = 112, 32.7%) model. Few studies (n = 38, 11%) explored scale heterogeneity or heteroskedasticity.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing preference heterogeneity evidence in health-related DCEs has been found as an increasingly used practice among researchers. In recent studies, controlling for unexplained preference heterogeneity has been seen as a common practice rather than explained ones (e.g., interactions), yet a lack of providing methodological details has been observed in many studies that might impact the quality of analysis. As heterogeneity can be assessed from different stakeholder perspectives with different methods, researchers should become more technically pronounced to increase confidence in the results and improve the ability of decision makers to act on the preference evidence.

Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Understanding patient preferences in cancer management is essential for shared decision-making. Patient or societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) for desired outcomes in cancer management represents their preferences and values of these outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate how current literature has addressed WTP in relation to cancer treatment and achievement of outcomes.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched from inception until 2 March 2021 to include studies with primary data of WTP values for cancer treatments or achievement of outcomes that were elicited using stated preference methods.

RESULTS

Fifty-four studies were included in this review. All studies were published after year 2000 and more than 90% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Sample size of the studies ranged from 35 to 2040, with patient being the most studied population. There was a near even distribution between studies using contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment. Based on the included studies, the highest WTP values were for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ($11,498-$589,822), followed by 1-year survival ($3-$198,576), quality of life (QoL) improvement ($5531-$139,499), and pain reduction ($79-$94,662). Current empirical evidence suggested that improvement in QoL and pain reduction had comparable weights to survival in cancer management.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides a summary on stated preference studies that elicited patient preferences via WTP and summarised their respective values. Respondents in this review had comparable WTP for 1-year survival and QoL, suggesting that improvement in QoL should be emphasised together with survival in cancer management.

Preferences of Older People With a Life-Limiting Illness: A Discrete Choice Experiment

CONTEXT

There is limited evidence about which elements and characteristics of palliative care service provision improve the experiences of older people living with life-limiting illness.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate older patients' (≥65 years) preferences for elements of services and supports and to explore relationships between patient characteristics and the patterns of preferences.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey undertaken in Ireland and England using a Discrete Choice Experiment with people accessing specialist palliative care services. A random-effects probit model was used to estimate patient preferences.

RESULTS

Of the 77 patients were interviewed, 51 participated in the Discrete Choice Experiment component of the interview (response rate = 66%). Participants prioritized support that minimized unpaid caregiver burden (P < 0.001). They also preferred ease of access to services including out-of-hours access (P < 0.001) and free care at home (P < 0.001). Quality of life was prioritized over quantity of life (<0.001).

CONCLUSION

People living with a life-limiting illness value care that focuses on quality of life, ensures barrier-free access to services and provides sufficient support for relatives. In the context of limited resources and growing demand for care, this study provides evidence about the service elements palliative care delivery models should prioritize and evaluate.

Value assessment frameworks: who is valuing the care in healthcare?

Many healthcare agencies are producing evidence-based guidance and policy that may determine the availability of particular healthcare products and procedures, effectively rationing aspects of healthcare. They claim legitimacy for their decisions through reference to evidence-based scientific method and the implementation of just decision-making procedures, often citing the criteria of 'accountability for reasonableness'; publicity, relevance, challenge and revision, and regulation. Central to most decision methods are estimates of gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), a measure that combines the length and quality of survival. However, all agree that the QALY alone is not a sufficient measure of all relevant aspects of potential healthcare benefits, and a number of value assessment frameworks have been suggested. I argue that the practical implementation of these procedures has the potential to lead to a distorted assessment of value. Undue weight may be ascribed to certain attributes, particularly those that favour commercial or political interests, while other attributes that are highly valued by society, particularly those related to care processes, may be omitted or undervalued. This may be compounded by a lack of transparency to relevant stakeholders, resulting in an inability for them to participate in, or challenge, the decisions. The makes it likely that costly new technologies, for which inflated prices can be justified by the current value frameworks, are displacing aspects of healthcare that are highly valued by society.

Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients' preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience.

RESULTS

A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Factors important for patients' BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients' perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients' BRA in every disease.

Evaluation of Factors Relevant to Pain Control Among Patients After Surgical Treatment

IMPORTANCE

Opioids are often prescribed after elective surgical treatment despite the potential for misuse. Although various pain control regimens exist, patient preferences for acute postoperative pain management are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient-reported key attributes of postoperative pain management.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This decision analytical model used responses from a survey based on conjoint analysis to investigate the value patients placed on different aspects of postoperative pain management. Participants were patients aged 18 years or older who underwent elective hand surgical procedures between July 1, 2018, and July 23, 2019, at a single academic center. The survey was completed on a web-based platform and took place between November 2019 and January 2020. Data were analyzed from May through July 2021.

EXPOSURES

Participants were presented with a series of discrete-choice tasks and asked to select between 2 postoperative medication options that changed from question to question and had varying characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Attribute importance scores and part-worth utility values for the queried aspects of pain control were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 710 individuals invited, 321 (45.2%) completed the survey; there were 212 (66.0%) women and 108 (33.6%) men, and the most common age category was 60 to 69 years (102 participants [31.8%]). Most patients reported previous opioid use (282 individuals [87.9%]). Factors in the decision-making process with the highest attribute importance scores (SDs) were risk of addiction (26.3% [13.0%]) and amount of pain relief (25.6% [14.6%]). Adverse effects 13.9% (7.2%), functional independence 11.8% (7.3%), and level of trust in the prescriber 11.4% (5.8%) had intermediate attribute importance scores (SDs). Cost 7.9% (4.4%) and stigma 3.1% (1.3%) had the lowest attribute importance scores (SDs) in patient decisions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that multimodal pain control regimens that are associated with optimized pain relief and minimized risk of addiction are preferable to treat acute postoperative pain. The results suggest that identifying procedures for which patients prioritize minimizing risk of addiction over pain relief and incorporating patient preferences into decision-making may be associated with decreased postoperative opioid prescribing.

Pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer: a research programme including the IMPACCT RCT

Background

Each year in England and Wales, 150,000 people die from cancer, of whom 110,000 will suffer from cancer pain. Research highlights that cancer pain remains common, severe and undertreated, and may lead to hospital admissions.

Objective

To develop and evaluate pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer.

Design

A programme of mixed-methods intervention development work leading to a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention for pain management compared with usual care, including an assessment of cost-effectiveness.

Participants

Patients, including those with metastatic solid cancer (histological, cytological or radiological evidence) and/or those receiving anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent, and health professionals involved in the delivery of community-based palliative care.

Setting

For the randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from oncology outpatient clinics and were randomly allocated to intervention or control and followed up at home.

Interventions

The Supported Self-Management intervention comprised an educational component called Tackling Cancer Pain, and an eHealth component for routine pain assessment and monitoring called PainCheck.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was pain severity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory). The secondary outcomes included pain interference (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory), participants’ pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. We estimated costs and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using decision modelling and a separate within-trial economic analysis. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year for the trial period.

Results

Work package 1 – We found barriers to and variation in the co-ordination of advanced cancer care by oncology and primary care professionals. We identified that the median time between referral to palliative care services and death for 42,758 patients in the UK was 48 days. We identified key components for self-management and developed and tested our Tackling Cancer Pain resource for acceptability. Work package 2 – Patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals recognised the benefits of an electronic system to monitor pain, but had reservations about how such a system might work in practice. We developed and tested a prototype PainCheck system. Work package 3 – We found that strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life at a median of 9 weeks before death. We delivered Medicines Use Reviews to patients, in which many medicines-related problems were identified. Work package 4 – A total of 161 oncology outpatients were randomised in our clinical trial, receiving either supported self-management (n = 80) or usual care (n = 81); their median survival from randomisation was 53 weeks. Primary and sensitivity analyses found no significant treatment differences for the primary outcome or for other secondary outcomes of pain severity or health-related quality of life. The literature-based decision modelling indicated that information and feedback interventions similar to the supported self-management intervention could be cost-effective. This model was not used to extrapolate the outcomes of the trial over a longer time horizon because the statistical analysis of the trial data found no difference between the trial arms in terms of the primary outcome measure (pain severity). The within-trial economic evaluation base-case analysis found that supported self-management reduced costs by £587 and yielded marginally higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.0018) than usual care. However, the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two trial arms was negligible and this was not in line with the decision model that had been developed. Our process evaluation found low fidelity of the interventions delivered by clinical professionals.

Limitations

In the randomised controlled trial, the low fidelity of the interventions and the challenge of the study design, which forced the usual-care arm to have earlier access to palliative care services, might explain the lack of observed benefit. Overall, 71% of participants returned outcome data at 6 or 12 weeks and so we used administrative data to estimate costs. Our decision model did not include the negative trial results from our randomised controlled trial and, therefore, may overestimate the likelihood of cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

Our programme of research has revealed new insights into how patients with advanced cancer manage their pain and the challenges faced by health professionals in identifying those who need more help. Our clinical trial failed to show an added benefit of our interventions to enhance existing community palliative care support, although both the decision model and the economic evaluation of the trial indicated that supported self-management could result in lower health-care costs.

Future work

There is a need for further research to (1) understand and facilitate triggers that prompt earlier integration of palliative care and pain management within oncology services; (2) determine the optimal timing of technologies for self-management; and (3) examine prescriber and patient behaviour to achieve the earlier initiation and use of strong opioid treatment.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18281271.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patients' perspectives of pain in dialysis: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies

ABSTRACT

Pain is a severe and common symptom in patients receiving dialysis but remains inadequately managed in clinical practice. Understanding patient experiences of pain can inform strategies to address this patient-important symptom. We aimed to describe patients' perspectives on causes, experiences, and impacts of dialysis-associated pain. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to August 2019 for all qualitative studies that described the perspectives of pain in adults aged 18 years or older receiving dialysis. Findings from the primary studies were analyzed using thematic synthesis. We included 60 studies across 14 countries involving 1343 participants (1215 receiving hemodialysis and 128 receiving peritoneal dialysis), and identified 6 themes: gripped by an all-consuming agony (draining cognitive capacity, exacerbating other symptoms); suffering in silence (surrendering to the inevitable, ignored or dismissed, hiding symptoms to protect others); provoking fear of treatment (resistance to cannulation, avoiding dialysis, anxious from witnessing other patients in pain); preventing life participation (preventing fulfilment of valued roles, depleting the will to live); coping aided by connection with others (shared understanding among patients, comforted and supported by others); and developing awareness, assertiveness, and self-reliance (procedural vigilance, finding strategies to minimize pain, bodily understanding and knowing thresholds, positive thinking). Struggling with pain in dialysis involved a progression of agony, fear, avoidance, and despair. However, support from others and self-management strategies were used to cope with pain. Strategies to empower patients to report and minimize pain and its consequences in dialysis are needed.

Eliciting Preferences for Adult Orthodontic Treatment: A Discrete Choice Experiment

INTRODUCTION

There has been little research to explore how adults financially value private orthodontic treatment and whether they have preferences for different attributes of treatment. This study used a discrete choice experiment and aimed to determine whether the recognized skill level of the dental professional and the type of orthodontic appliance influence the values that the public places on private adult orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

In total, 206 adult patients or the parents/guardians of children attending general dental practices in the northeast of England were recruited to complete a discrete choice experiment. Three attributes were included: the type of dental professional providing treatment, the type of orthodontic appliance, and cost. Also collected were demographic and orthodontic history characteristics. Results were analyzed with conditional logistic regression and elicited marginal willingness to pay (MWTP).

RESULTS

Participants value the training and expertise of the dental professional providing private orthodontic treatment greater than the type of orthodontic appliance. MWTP for orthodontic treatment increased in conjunction with the recognized skill level of the dental professional. Participants were willing to pay more for aesthetic appliances over a fixed metal appliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants value the training and expertise of the dental professional providing private adult orthodontic treatment greater than the type of orthodontic appliance. These preferences concur with other discrete choice experiments undertaken in medical specialties that included attributes focusing on the qualification, skill, or expertise of the health care professional. MWTP for orthodontic treatment increased in conjunction with the recognized skill level of the dental professional. Participants were willing to pay more for aesthetic appliances than metal fixed appliances. The cost of orthodontics is significant, and adults appreciate the importance of having options and making choices.Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study suggest that patients are willing to pay more for orthodontic services provided by clinicians with higher levels of formal training. In a competitive market where the public appears to prefer the provider over treatment modality, there is an incentive for clinicians to optimize their knowledge and skills to deliver the high-quality orthodontic treatment that patients are demanding. Orthodontic clinicians should be mindful of the demand for the different adult orthodontic appliances and tailor their skill sets accordingly.

Oral or Topical Pain Therapy-How Would Patients Decide? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Patients with Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

To ensure an adequate pain therapy with high patient adherence, it is necessary to know and consider patient preferences. A discrete choice experiment was used to obtain patients' preferences regarding treatment with systemic or topical pain medication. Patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (pNP) were recruited in two pain-focused practices in Germany. To identify relevant attributes of topical or systemic pain medication, a literature review and face-to-face interviews with experts for pain treatment were conducted. The attributes used in the choice scenarios were noticeable onset of effect, time spent in medical office, risk of systemic and local side effects, and impairment of daily life with regard to sleep quality and sexuality. The model was estimated with a mixed multinomial logit regression model. The study included 153 participants suffering from moderate to severe pNP. Most important attributes from patient's perspective was noticeable onset of effect (odds ratio 2.141 [95% confidence interval 1.837 to 2.494]), followed by risk of systemic side effects (2.038 [1.731 to 2.400]) and risk of sexual dysfunction (1.839 [1.580 to 2.140]), while risk of local side effects regarding skin ranked fourth (1.612 [1.321 to 1.966]). The impairment of sleep quality was also significant but less important (1.556 [1.346 to 1.798]). Local side effects were more likely to be accepted than systemic side effects. The risk of sexual dysfunction as a side effect of treatment is very important for patients, although it has received little attention in the literature.

Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review

Introduction

Despite the recognised importance of participant understanding for valid and reliable discrete choice experiment (DCE) results, there has been limited assessment of whether, and how, people understand DCEs, and how ‘understanding’ is conceptualised in DCEs applied to a health context.

Objectives

Our aim was to identify how participant understanding is conceptualised in the DCE literature in a health context. Our research questions addressed how participant understanding is defined, measured, and used.

Methods

Searches were conducted (June 2019) in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Econlit databases, as well as hand searching. Search terms were based on previous DCE systematic reviews, with additional understanding keywords used in a proximity-based search strategy. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed journal articles in the field of health, related to DCE or best-worst scaling type 3 (BWS3) studies, and reporting some consideration or assessment of participant understanding. A descriptive analytical approach was used to chart relevant data from each study, including publication year, country, clinical area, subject group, sample size, study design, numbers of attributes, levels and choice sets, definition of understanding, how understanding was tested, results of the understanding tests, and how the information about understanding was used. Each study was categorised based on how understanding was conceptualised and used within the study.

Results

Of 306 potentially eligible articles identified, 31 were excluded based on titles and abstracts, and 200 were excluded on full-text review, resulting in 75 included studies. Three categories of study were identified: applied DCEs (n = 52), pretesting studies (n = 7) and studies of understanding (n = 16). Typically, understanding was defined in relation to either the choice context, such as attribute terminology, or the concept of choosing. Very few studies considered respondents’ engagement as a component of understanding. Understanding was measured primarily through qualitative pretesting, rationality or validity tests included in the survey, and participant self-report, however reporting and use of the results of these methods was inconsistent.

Conclusions

Those conducting or using health DCEs should carefully select, justify, and report the measurement and potential impact of participant understanding in their specific choice context. There remains scope for research into the different components of participant understanding, particularly related to engagement, the impact of participant understanding on DCE validity and reliability, the best measures of understanding, and methods to maximise participant understanding.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40271-020-00467-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Reporting Quality of Marginal Rates of Substitution in Discrete Choice Experiments That Elicit Patient Preferences

BACKGROUND

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences as marginal rates of substitution (MRSs) between treatment or health service attributes. Because these studies are increasing in importance, it is vital that uncertainty around MRS estimates is reported.

OBJECTIVE

To review recently published DCE studies that elicit patient preferences in relation to MRS reporting and to explore the accuracy of using other reported information to estimate the uncertainty of the MRSs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of DCEs conducted with patients between 2014 and July 2019 was performed. The number of studies reporting coefficients, MRSs, standard errors (SEs), and confidence intervals was recorded. If all information was reported, studies were included in an analysis to determine the impact of estimating the SEs of MRSs using coefficients and assuming zero covariance, to determine the impact of this assumption.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-two patient DCEs were identified in the review; 34.1% (n = 79) reported 1 or more MRS and, of these, only 62.0% (n = 49) provided an estimate of the uncertainty. Of these studies, 16 contained enough information for inclusion in the analysis, providing 116 datapoints. Actual SEs were smaller than estimated SEs in 75.0% of cases (n = 87), and estimated SEs were within 25% of the actual SE in 59.5% of cases (n = 69).

CONCLUSION

Uncertainty of MRS estimates is unreported in a substantial proportion of recently published DCE studies. Estimating the SE of a MRS by solely using the SEs of the utility coefficients is likely to lead to biased estimates of the precision of patient trade-offs.

Patient Treatment Preferences for Heart Failure Medications: A Mixed Methods Study

INTRODUCTION

Consideration of patient preferences for guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) may help improve major gaps in prescribing and adherence. This study aimed to identify the range and relative priority of factors influencing patients' decisions to take HFrEF medications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a convergent mixed methods study of patients with HFrEF. Focus groups were conducted to identify a list of factors followed by individuals rating and ranking the influence of each factor on their decision to take a medication. Using thematic analysis, we summarized preferences into categories.

RESULTS

Two focus groups with 13 participants reported 22 factors. Of the factors, "keeping you alive" was most commonly ranked in the top three (seven participants), followed by "communication and understanding" (six participants). Factors were summarized into six categories (listed in order of patient-reported influence): 1) demonstrated improvements in quality of life and longevity, 2) decreased risk of hospitalization, 3) opportunity for shared decision-making and trust in provider, 4) absence of adverse events, 5) affordability, and 6) convenience of taking and absence of interference with daily life.

CONCLUSION

Patients prioritize treatment benefits and being informed more than risks, cost and inconvenience of taking HFrEF medications.

Preferences for Continence Care Experienced at End of Life: A Qualitative Study

CONTEXT

Functional dependence at end of life often leaves individuals requiring help for personal care, including maintaining continence. Current continence guidelines offer little direction for end of life continence care, and little is known of the perspectives of people receiving palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to examine the continence care preferences of people receiving palliative care to understand what approaches to care and what goals of care are important to them.

METHODS

This is a qualitative descriptive exploratory study with data gathered in individual interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. Participants were receiving bladder and/or bowel care on either tertiary or hospice palliative care units.

RESULTS

Fourteen Canadian patients (seven female, seven male), six from tertiary and eight from hospice palliative care units, were recruited. From the analysis, three themes were identified: loss of control, finding a way to manage, and caregivers can help and can hinder. Dignity was often lost as a result of having to receive continence care, with most participants following staff recommendations for management approaches as the easiest way. Patients did not recall being asked about their bladder and bowel preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

As patients approached end of life they were willing to give up dignity if it was required to address symptoms causing them more distress, like pain. Health care professionals and family have an important role in social interactions around continence care. Health care professionals should incorporate patient preferences as best they can and explain the options when treating incontinence at end of life.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pain Management Strategies in Advanced Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Uncontrolled pain in advanced cancer is a common problem and has significant impact on individuals' quality of life and use of healthcare resources. Interventions to help manage pain at the end of life are available, but there is limited economic evidence to support their wider implementation. We conducted a case study economic evaluation of two pain self-management interventions (PainCheck and Tackling Cancer Pain Toolkit [TCPT]) compared with usual care.

METHODS

We generated a decision-analytic model to facilitate the evaluation. This modelled the survival of individuals at the end of life as they moved through pain severity categories. Intervention effectiveness was based on published meta-analyses results. The evaluation was conducted from the perspective of the U.K. health service provider and reported cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS

PainCheck and TCPT were cheaper (respective incremental costs -GBP148 [-EUR168.53] and -GBP474 [-EUR539.74]) and more effective (respective incremental QALYs of 0.010 and 0.013) than usual care. There was a 65 percent and 99.5 percent chance of cost-effectiveness for PainCheck and TCPT, respectively. Results were relatively robust to sensitivity analyses. The most important driver of cost-effectiveness was level of pain reduction (intervention effectiveness). Although cost savings were modest per patient, these were considerable when accounting for the number of potential intervention beneficiaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational and monitoring/feedback interventions have the potential to be cost-effective. Economic evaluations based on estimates of effectiveness from published meta-analyses and using a decision modeling approach can support commissioning decisions and implementation of pain management strategies.

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.

Self-management toolkit and delivery strategy for end-of-life pain: the mixed-methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Pain affects most people approaching the end of life and can be severe for some. Opioid analgesia is effective, but evidence is needed about how best to support patients in managing these medicines.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a self-management support toolkit (SMST) and delivery strategy and to test the feasibility of evaluating this intervention in a future definitive trial.

DESIGN

Phase I - evidence synthesis and qualitative interviews with patients and carers. Phase II - qualitative semistructured focus groups and interviews with patients, carers and specialist palliative care health professionals. Phase III - multicentre mixed-methods single-arm pre-post observational feasibility study.

PARTICIPANTS

Phase I - six patients and carers. Phase II - 15 patients, four carers and 19 professionals. Phase III - 19 patients recruited to intervention that experienced pain, living at home and were treated with strong opioid analgesia. Process evaluation interviews with 13 patients, seven carers and 11 study nurses.

INTERVENTION

Self-Management of Analgesia and Related Treatments at the end of life (SMART) intervention comprising a SMST and a four-step educational delivery approach by clinical nurse specialists in palliative care over 6 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Recruitment rate, treatment fidelity, treatment acceptability, patient-reported outcomes (such as scores on the Brief Pain Inventory, Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale, and feasibility of collecting data on health-care resource use for economic evaluation).

RESULTS

Phase I - key themes on supported self-management were identified from evidence synthesis and qualitative interviews. Phase II - the SMST was developed and refined. The delivery approach was nested within a nurse-patient consultation. Phase III - intervention was delivered to 17 (89%) patients, follow-up data at 6 weeks were available on 15 patients. Overall, the intervention was viewed as acceptable and valued. Descriptive analysis of patient-reported outcomes suggested that interference from pain and self-efficacy were likely to be candidates for primary outcomes in a future trial. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. The health economic analysis suggested that SMART could be cost-effective. We identified key limitations and considerations for a future trial: improve recruitment through widening eligibility criteria, refine the SMST resources content, enhance fidelity of intervention delivery, secure research nurse support at recruiting sites, refine trial procedures (including withdrawal process and data collection frequency), and consider a cluster randomised design with nurse as cluster unit.

LIMITATIONS

(1) The recruitment rate was lower than anticipated. (2) The content of the intervention was focused on strong opioids only. (3) The fidelity of intervention delivery was limited by the need for ongoing training and support. (4) Recruitment sites where clinical research nurse support was not secured had lower recruitment rates. (5) The process for recording withdrawal was not sufficiently detailed. (6) The number of follow-up visits was considered burdensome for some participants. (7) The feasibility trial did not have a control arm or assess randomisation processes.

CONCLUSIONS

A future randomised controlled trial is feasible and acceptable.

STUDY AND TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013572; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35327119; and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio registration 162114.

FUNDING

The NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Improving the management of pain from advanced cancer in the community: study protocol for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

For patients with advanced cancer, research shows that pain is frequent, burdensome and undertreated. Evidence-based approaches to support cancer pain management have been developed but have not been implemented within the context of the UK National Health Service. This protocol is for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for a multicomponent intervention for pain management in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This trial will assess the feasibility of implementation and uptake of evidence-based interventions, developed and piloted as part of the Improving the Management of Pain from Advanced Cancer in the Community Programme grant, into routine clinical practice and determine whether there are potential differences with respect to patient-rated pain, patient pain knowledge and experience, healthcare use, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. 160 patients will receive either the intervention (usual care plus supported self-management) delivered within the oncology clinic and palliative care services by locally assigned community palliative care nurses, consisting of a self-management educational intervention and eHealth intervention for routine pain assessment and monitoring; or usual care. The primary outcomes are to assess implementation and uptake of the interventions, and differences in terms of pain severity. Secondary outcomes include pain interference, participant pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. Outcome assessment will be blinded and patient-reported outcome measures collected via post at 6 and 12 weeks following randomisation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This RCT has the potential to significantly influence National Health Service delivery to community-based patients with pain from advanced cancer. We aim to provide definitive evidence of whether two simple interventions delivered by community palliative care nurse in palliative care that support-self-management are clinically effective and cost-effective additions to standard community palliative care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN18281271; Pre-results.