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

The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Stakeholder preference evaluations are increasingly emphasized in healthcare policy and health technology assessment. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are the most common method for quantifying preferences among patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. While prior reviews (1990-2017) have examined DCE trends, no comprehensive synthesis exists for studies published since 2018. This updated review (2018-2023) provides critical insights into evolving methodologies and global trends in health-related DCEs.

METHODS

A systematic search (2018-2023) of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science identified relevant studies. Studies were screened for inclusion and data were extracted, including details on DCE design and analysis. To enable trend comparisons, the search strategy and extraction items aligned with previous reviews.

RESULTS

Of 2663 identified papers, 1279 met the inclusion criteria, reflecting a significant rise in published DCEs over time. DCEs were conducted globally, with a remarkable increase in publications from Asia and Africa compared with previous reviews. Experimental designs and econometric models have advanced, continuing prior trends. Notably, most recent DCEs were administered online.

DISCUSSION

The rapid growth of DCE applications underscores their importance in health research. While the methodology is advancing rapidly, it is crucial that researchers provide full transparency in reporting their methods, particularly in detailing experimental designs and validity tests, which are too often overlooked. Key recommendations include improving reporting of experimental designs, applying validity tests, following good practices for presenting benefit-risk attributes, and adopting open science practices. Ensuring methodological rigor will maximize the impact and reproducibility of DCE research in health economics.

Perceived risk of death among patients with advanced cancer: a qualitative directed content analysis

BACKGROUND

Risk perception with respect to death is a prerequisite for patients with advanced cancer when the time comes to make medical decisions. However, the nature of death risk perception remains unclear.

METHOD

In-depth interviews were conducted with 28 patients with advanced cancer who were recruited from two hospitals and one home-based hospice in Fujian, China. Interviews were transcribed and directed content analysis applied. The Tripartite Model of Risk Perception was used as a theoretical framework.

RESULTS

Patients with advanced cancer perceived their risk of death in different ways. Professional communication about death risk and data-driven risk perception were common in clinical settings. Affective influences, inherent cognition, and comparisons to others or oneself also contributed to the subjects' self-perceived death risk.

CONCLUSION

This theory-informed qualitative study clarifies the nature of the perceived risk of death among patients with advanced cancer. The study findings offer healthcare providers a more nuanced understanding of the perceived risk of death among patients with advanced cancer.

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.

Clinicians' Understanding of Preferences and Values of People with Hematological Malignancies at the End of Life: Concurrent Surveys

Background: People with hematological malignancies can deteriorate rapidly to a terminal event and have variable levels of engagement when transitioning to palliative and end-of-life care. Objectives: To describe end-of-life care values and preferences of people with hematological malignancies and explore whether these align with hematology clinicians' perceptions. Design: Two matched anonymous quantitative cross-sectional surveys explored: (1) patients' values and preferences around manner and timing of discussions regarding life expectancy and prognosis, involvement in decision making, and concurrent integration of palliative care with active treatment; and (2) clinicians' perceptions of their patients' values and preferences in relation to prognostic information. Settings/Participants: Concurrent online national surveys of people with hematological malignancies known to the Leukemia Foundation of Australia, and clinicians in Australia with membership to the Hematology Society of Australia and New Zealand. Results: Five hundred nine (38% response rate) patients (median age 64 [min 20, max 89, interquartile range 56-70]) and 272 clinicians (21% response rate) responded to the survey. If their health was deteriorating, most patients wanted honest prognostic and life expectancy information (87%); welcomed involvement in decision making (94%); felt they would be comfortable talking to the treating team about the possibility of death (86%); and would be comfortable seeing someone from a specialist palliative care team (74%). Clinicians generally underestimated most of these responses. Conclusion: Although our findings indicate that most people believe they would be comfortable discussing prognosis, life expectancy, and wishes at the end of life, clinicians were largely unaware of their preferences. This highlights the need to embed values clarification in routine care for each patient and family.

Patient Preferences for Discussing Life Expectancy: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Discussing life expectancy helps inform decisions related to preventive medication, screening, and personal care planning. Our aim was to systematically review the literature on patient preferences for discussing life expectancy and to identify predictors for these preferences.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and gray literature from inception until 17 February 2021. Two authors screened titles/abstracts and full texts, and extracted data and one author assessed quality. The outcome of interest was the proportion of patients willing to discuss life expectancy. We reported descriptive statistics, performed a narrative synthesis, and explored sub-groups of patients according to patient characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 41 studies with an accumulated population of 27,570 participants were included, comprising quantitative survey/questionnaire studies (n=27) and qualitative interview studies (n=14). Willingness to discuss life expectancy ranged from 19 to 100% (median 61%, interquartile range (IQR) 50-73) across studies, with the majority (77%) reporting more than half of subjects willing to discuss. There was considerable heterogeneity in willingness to discuss life expectancy, even between studies from patients with similar ages, diseases, and cultural profiles. The highest variability in willingness to discuss was found among patients with cancer (range 19-100%, median 61%, IQR 51-81) and patients aged 50-64 years (range 19-97%, median 61%, IQR 45-87). This made it impossible to determine predictors for willingness to discuss life expectancy.

DISCUSSION

Most patients are willing to discuss life expectancy; however, a substantial proportion is not. Heterogeneity and variability in preferences make it challenging to identify clear predictors of willingness to discuss. Variability in preferences may to some extent be influenced by age, disease, and cultural differences. These findings highlight the individual and complex nature in which patients approach this topic and stress the importance of clinicians considering eliciting patient's individual preferences when initiating discussions about life expectancy.