Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20387912›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2010

Does the inclusion of a cost attribute result in different preferences for the surgical treatment of primary basal cell carcinoma?: a comparison of two discrete-choice experiments.

Brigitte A B Essers, Debby van Helvoort-Postulart, Martin H Prins, Martino Neumann, Carmen D Dirksen

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Fee comparisons of treatments for nonmelanoma skin cancer in a private practice academic setting.Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2012
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Brigitte A B EssersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, University Hospital Maastricht, 6202 AZ Maastricht, the Netherlands. brigitte.essers@mumc.nl
Debby van Helvoort-Postulart
Martin H Prins
Martino Neumann
Carmen D Dirksen
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNowadays, an increasing number of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) incorporate cost as an attribute. However, the inclusion of a cost attribute, particularly within collectively funded healthcare systems, can be challenging because health services or goods are generally not traded in a market situation and individuals are not used to paying for a service or a good at the point of consumption.

objectiveTo examine whether the inclusion of a cost attribute in a DCE results in different preferences regarding a surgical treatment for primary basal cell carcinoma (BCC) compared with a DCE without a cost attribute.

methodsA randomized study was performed in which the impact of a cost attribute on the general public's preferences for a surgical treatment (Mohs micrographic surgery [MMS] or standard excision [SE]) to remove BCC was examined. This was done by comparing the outcomes of two DCEs, one with a cost attribute (DCE_cost) and one without (DCE_nocost). Six attributes (recurrence, re-excision, travel time, surgical time, waiting time for surgical results, costs) and their levels were selected, based on results of a clinical trial, a cost-effectiveness study, a review and a focus group of patients who had recently received treatment for BCC. Outcomes of both DCEs were compared in terms of theoretical validity, relative importance of the attributes and the rank order of preferences.

resultsA total of 615 respondents (n = 303 for DCE_nocost; n = 312 for DCE_cost) were interviewed by telephone. This gave an overall response rate of 38%. Respondents in DCE_nocost preferred a surgical treatment with a lower probability of recurrence, lower surgery time, lower waiting time and no risk for a re-excision. Respondents in DCE_cost showed the same preferences, but also preferred a treatment with less travel time and lower costs. Overall, respondents in both DCEs showed the same preference for a surgical treatment: MMS was preferred over SE.

conclusionResults suggest that, in this population, the inclusion of a cost attribute in a DCE leads to the same preference regarding a surgical treatment to remove BCC as a DCE without a cost attribute. However, further research in different settings is needed to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorHealth Care CostsAdultBasal Cell CarcinomaCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMalePatient PreferenceSkin Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID20387912
OpenAlexW2086961103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.