ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2013
Eliciting patients' preferences for outpatient treatment of febrile neutropenia: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.The patient · 2014Pooled it
- Article
- A Comparative Study on Willingness to Pay for Breast Cancer and Osteoporosis Screening in Kerman, Southeastern Iran.Iranian journal of public health · 2017Article
- Patient preferences for hospital quality: case study of iran.Iranian Red Crescent medical journal · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStudies have demonstrated that patients at low risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) complications can be treated safely and effectively at home. Information on patient preferences for outpatient treatment of this condition will help to optimize health care delivery to these patients. The purpose of this study was to elicit non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients' preferences on attributes related to outpatient treatment of FN.
methodsWe used a self-administered discrete choice experiment questionnaire based on the attributes of out-of-pocket costs, unpaid caregiver time required daily, and probability of return to the hospital. Ten paired scenarios in which levels of the attributes were varied were presented to study patients. For each pair, patients indicated the scenario they preferred. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of accepting a scenario that described outpatient care for FN were estimated.
resultsEighty-eight patients completed the questionnaire. Adjusted ORs [95 % confidence intervals] of accepting outpatient care for FN were 0.84 [0.75, 0.95] for each $10 increase in out-of-pocket cost; 0.82 [0.68, 0.99] for each 1 h increase in daily unpaid caregiver time; and 0.53 [0.50, 0.57] for each 5 % increase in probability of return to the hospital.
conclusionsProbability of return to the hospital was the most important attribute to patients when considering home-based care for FN. Patients considered out-of-pocket costs and unpaid caregiver time to be less important than probability of return to the hospital. This study identifies factors that could be incorporated into outpatient delivery systems for FN care to ensure adequate patient uptake and satisfaction with such programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.