SynthesisThe patient2017
Patients' Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.
Synthesis in The patient, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 22 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
57 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Understanding Patient Preferences for Medication Process Attributes: A Systematic Literature Review.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Stated preferences of adolescents and young adults for sexual and reproductive health services in Africa: a systematic review.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025Pooled it
- Summary of present design of discrete choice experiments for patient preferences in lung cancer based on the ISPOR ESTIMATE checklist.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments on Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccinations.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- Stated Preferences of At-Risk Populations for the Treatment of Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2024Pooled it
- Treatment Preference Research in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies.The patient · 2024Pooled it
- Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccines: Systematic Literature Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Pooled it
- Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Pooled it
- Differences between physician and patient preferences for cancer treatments: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Eliciting preferences in glaucoma management-a systematic review of stated-preference studies.Eye (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Pooled it
- Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2022Pooled it
- Stated Preference Research in Reproductive and Maternal Healthcare Services in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2022Pooled it
- Vaccine preferences driving vaccine-decision making of different target groups: a systematic review of choice-based experiments.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Patient Preferences for Breast Cancer Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2019Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAs several studies have been conducted to elicit patients' preferences for cancer treatment, it is important to provide an overview and synthesis of these studies. This study aimed to systematically review discrete choice experiments (DCEs) about patients' preferences for cancer treatment and assessed the relative importance of outcome, process and cost attributes.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE to identify all DCEs investigating patients' preferences for cancer treatment between January 2010 and April 2016. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction sheet, and a reporting quality assessment was applied to all studies. Attributes were classified into outcome, process and cost attributes, and their relative importance was assessed.
resultsA total of 28 DCEs were identified. More than half of the studies (56%) received an aggregate score lower than 4 on the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) 5-point scale. Most attributes were related to outcome (70%), followed by process (25%) and cost (5%). Outcome attributes were most often significant (81%), followed by process (73%) and cost (67%). The relative importance of outcome attributes was ranked highest in 82% of the cases where it was included, followed by cost (43%) and process (12%).
conclusionThis systematic review suggests that attributes related to cancer treatment outcomes are the most important for patients. Process and cost attributes were less often included in studies but were still (but less) important to patients in most studies. Clinicians and decision makers should be aware that attribute importance might be influenced by level selection for that attribute.
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.