Tailoring chemotherapy supply according to patients' preferences: a quantitative method in colorectal cancer care

Patient choice in colorectal cancer treatment - A systematic review and narrative synthesis of attribute-based stated preference studies

AIM

The global burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) is set to increase by 60% by 2030. An aging population and increasing treatment complexity add difficulties for patients and clinicians in CRC management. Patient preferences can be investigated using attribute-based stated preference (AbSP) techniques to explore trade-offs between different treatments. These techniques include discrete-choice experiments (DCEs), conjoint analysis and time-trade off (TTO) methods. This systematic review with a narrative synthesis aimed to determine the use and design of AbSP studies in CRC treatment and to identify patient choice themes.

METHODS

The searches were performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and Cochrane Library in March 2021. All manuscripts featuring the use of AbSP techniques in CRC treatment were included. Data synthesis was performed using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

The search strategy returned 271 articles. Eighteen AbSP studies were included featuring 1890 patients and 296 clinicians. AbSP techniques compromised DCE (38.9%, n = 7), TTO (38.9%, n = 7) and conjoint analysis (22.2%, n = 4). Eleven studies (61.1%) involved piloting of tasks and the average task completion rate was 75%. CRC treatments included chemotherapy (33%, n = 6), combined treatments (33%, n = 6), surgery (17%, n = 3), targeted therapy (11%, n = 2) and radiotherapy (6%, n = 1). The most examined domain was physical health, investigated with 49 (59.8%) attributes.

CONCLUSIONS

Life expectancy was the main attribute in chemotherapy treatment. With surgery, patients were willing to trade life-expectancy to avoid adverse outcomes or a permanent stoma. Communication skills, treatment cost, and clinicians' views were important attributes for patients in cancer services. Further research in the elderly population, and other quality of life domains, are needed to deliver patient-centred CRC care.

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments

BACKGROUND

As the number and type of cancer treatments available rises and patients live with the consequences of their disease and treatments for longer, understanding preferences for cancer care can help inform decisions about optimal treatment development, access, and care provision. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used as a tool to elicit stakeholder preferences; however, their implementation in oncology may be challenging if burdensome trade-offs (e.g. length of life versus quality of life) are involved and/or target populations are small.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to characterise DCEs relating to cancer treatments that were conducted between 1990 and March 2020.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant studies.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included if they implemented a DCE and reported outcomes of interest (i.e. quantitative outputs on participants' preferences for cancer treatments), but were excluded if they were not focused on pharmacological, radiological or surgical treatments (e.g. cancer screening or counselling services), were non-English, or were a secondary analysis of an included study.

ANALYSIS METHODS

Analysis followed a narrative synthesis, and quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, including rankings of attribute importance.

RESULT

Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. The number of published DCEs relating to oncology grew over the review period. Studies were conducted in a range of indications (n = 19), most commonly breast (n =10, 13%) and prostate (n = 9, 11%) cancer, and most studies elicited preferences of patients (n = 59, 75%). Across reviewed studies, survival attributes were commonly ranked as most important, with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) ranked most important in 58% and 28% of models, respectively. Preferences varied between stakeholder groups, with patients and clinicians placing greater importance on survival outcomes, and general population samples valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite the emphasis of guidelines on the importance of using qualitative research to inform attribute selection and DCE designs, reporting on instrument development was mixed.

LIMITATIONS

No formal assessment of bias was conducted, with the scope of the paper instead providing a descriptive characterisation. The review only included DCEs relating to cancer treatments, and no insight is provided into other health technologies such as cancer screening. Only DCEs were included.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Although there was variation in attribute importance between responder types, survival attributes were consistently ranked as important by both patients and clinicians. Observed challenges included the risk of attribute dominance for survival outcomes, limited sample sizes in some indications, and a lack of reporting about instrument development processes.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020184232.

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.