Abstract
The data describes the responses of 113 self identified patient respondents for a discrete choice experiment investigating trade-offs between hypothetical treatments. A pending abstract for the paper is included below.
Background: There has been a recent proliferation in treatment options for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Discussions surrounding treatment often involve trade-offs between overall survival and side-effects. Understanding patient preferences for such trade-offs can support shared decision-making. Methods: We designed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to look at patient trade-offs between overall survival and side-effects which impact quality of life when choosing between treatments for metastatic breast cancer. Treatment attributes were fatigue, nausea, diarrhoea, other side-effects (peripheral neuropathy, hand foot syndrome, and mucositis), urgent hospital admission and overall survival (annual probability of survival). Responses were analysed using a multinomial logit model and willingness to trade overall survival for improvements in side-effects was estimated. Results: 113 respondents participated, including 72 metastatic breast cancer patients and 33 primary breast cancer patients. Whilst overall survival was highly important respondents demonstrated a willingness to trade overall survival for reductions in Grade 2 side-effects. Respondents were willing to give up the greatest survival to avoid Grade 2 side-effects relative to no side-effects: firstly, hand foot syndrome (10.66%), then mucositis (9.80%), peripheral neuropathy (9.20%), and finally diarrhoea (6.14%). Grade 1 side-effects were not significant, suggesting respondents were willing to tolerate them and unwilling to forgo any survival benefits to avoid them. Risk of urgent hospital admission was not significant. Conclusion: Patient trade-offs can form a baseline for discussion in the doctor-patient consultation, helping to move towards a process of shared decision-making.
Background: There has been a recent proliferation in treatment options for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Discussions surrounding treatment often involve trade-offs between overall survival and side-effects. Understanding patient preferences for such trade-offs can support shared decision-making. Methods: We designed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to look at patient trade-offs between overall survival and side-effects which impact quality of life when choosing between treatments for metastatic breast cancer. Treatment attributes were fatigue, nausea, diarrhoea, other side-effects (peripheral neuropathy, hand foot syndrome, and mucositis), urgent hospital admission and overall survival (annual probability of survival). Responses were analysed using a multinomial logit model and willingness to trade overall survival for improvements in side-effects was estimated. Results: 113 respondents participated, including 72 metastatic breast cancer patients and 33 primary breast cancer patients. Whilst overall survival was highly important respondents demonstrated a willingness to trade overall survival for reductions in Grade 2 side-effects. Respondents were willing to give up the greatest survival to avoid Grade 2 side-effects relative to no side-effects: firstly, hand foot syndrome (10.66%), then mucositis (9.80%), peripheral neuropathy (9.20%), and finally diarrhoea (6.14%). Grade 1 side-effects were not significant, suggesting respondents were willing to tolerate them and unwilling to forgo any survival benefits to avoid them. Risk of urgent hospital admission was not significant. Conclusion: Patient trade-offs can form a baseline for discussion in the doctor-patient consultation, helping to move towards a process of shared decision-making.
Data Citation
Hall, Peter; Bullen, Alistair; Ennis, Holly; Loria Rebolldo, Luis; McIntyre, Morag. (2022). InfoBC Discrete Choice Experiment Data, [dataset]. University of Edinburgh. Edinburgh Medical School. Molecular, Genetic and Population Health Sciences. Usher Institute. https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/3460.
| Date made available | 20 May 2022 |
|---|---|
| Publisher | Edinburgh DataShare |
| Geographical coverage | UNITED KINGDOM,UK |