Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28364385›Full record

ArticleThe patient2017

Patient Preferences for Pain Management in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment.

David M Meads, John L O'Dwyer, Claire T Hulme, Phani Chintakayala, Karen Vinall-Collier, Michael I Bennett

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David M MeadsAcademic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Charles Thackrah Building, 101 Clarendon Road, Leeds, UK. D.Meads@leeds.ac.uk.
John L O'DwyerAcademic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Charles Thackrah Building, 101 Clarendon Road, Leeds, UK.
Claire T HulmeAcademic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Charles Thackrah Building, 101 Clarendon Road, Leeds, UK.
Phani ChintakayalaLeeds University Business School and Leeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Karen Vinall-CollierAcademic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Charles Thackrah Building, 101 Clarendon Road, Leeds, UK.
Michael I BennettAcademic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0610-10114Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-0610-10114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPain from advanced cancer remains prevalent, severe and often under-treated.

aimThe aim of this study was to conduct a discrete choice experiment with patients to understand their preferences for pain management services and inform service development.

methodsFocus groups were used to develop the attributes and levels of the discrete choice experiment. The attributes were: waiting time, type of healthcare professional, out-of-pocket costs, side-effect control, quality of communication, quality of information and pain control. Patients completed the discrete choice experiment along with clinical and health-related quality of life questions. Conditional and mixed logit models were used to analyse the data.

resultsPatients with cancer pain (n = 221) and within palliative care services completed the survey (45% were female, mean age 64.6 years; age range 21-92 years). The most important aspects of pain management were: good pain control, zero out-of-pocket costs and good side-effect control. Poor or moderate pain control and £30 costs drew the highest negative preferences. Respondents preferred control of side effects and provision of better information and communication, over access to certain healthcare professionals. Those with lower health-related quality of life were less willing to wait for treatment and willing to incur higher costs. The presence of a carer influenced preferences.

conclusionsOutcome attributes were more important than process attributes but the latter were still valued. Thus, supporting self-management, for example by providing better information on pain may be a worthwhile endeavour. However, service provision may need to account for individual characteristics given the heterogeneity in preferences.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCancer PainCommunicationDecision Support TechniquesFemaleFocus GroupsHealth ExpendituresHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPain ManagementCancer PainDiscrete Choice ExperimentPain ControlPain ManagementPalliative Care Service

Identifiers

PMID28364385
OpenAlexW2276317048

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.