Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29512137›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of surgery2018

Discrete-choice experiment to analyse preferences for centralizing specialist cancer surgery services.

L Vallejo-Torres, M Melnychuk, C Vindrola-Padros, M Aitchison, C S Clarke, N J Fulop, J Hines, C Levermore, S B Maddineni, C Perry and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors.

L Vallejo-TorresDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5833-6066
M MelnychukDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
C Vindrola-PadrosDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
M AitchisonDepartment of Renal and Nephrology Services, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
C S ClarkeResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
N J FulopDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
J HinesUrology Department, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
C LevermoreUniversity College London Hospitals Cancer Collaborative, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
S B MaddineniDepartment of Urology, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
C PerryAlliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
K Pritchard-JonesUniversity College London Hospitals Cancer Collaborative, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
A I G RamsayDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
D C ShackleyGreater Manchester Cancer, hosted by Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK.
S MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/14/46/19
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCentralizing specialist cancer surgery services aims to reduce variations in quality of care and improve patient outcomes, but increases travel demands on patients and families. This study aimed to evaluate preferences of patients, health professionals and members of the public for the characteristics associated with centralization.

methodsA discrete-choice experiment was conducted, using paper and electronic surveys. Participants comprised: former and current patients (at any stage of treatment) with prostate, bladder, kidney or oesophagogastric cancer who previously participated in the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey; health professionals with experience of cancer care (11 types including surgeons, nurses and oncologists); and members of the public. Choice scenarios were based on the following attributes: travel time to hospital, risk of serious complications, risk of death, annual number of operations at the centre, access to a specialist multidisciplinary team (MDT) and specialist surgeon cover after surgery.

resultsResponses were obtained from 444 individuals (206 patients, 111 health professionals and 127 members of the public). The response rate was 52·8 per cent for the patient sample; it was unknown for the other groups as the survey was distributed via multiple overlapping methods. Preferences were particularly influenced by risk of complications, risk of death and access to a specialist MDT. Participants were willing to travel, on average, 75 min longer in order to reduce their risk of complications by 1 per cent, and over 5 h longer to reduce risk of death by 1 per cent. Findings were similar across groups.

conclusionRespondents' preferences in this selected sample were consistent with centralization.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient PreferenceSurveys and QuestionnairesAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesSpecializationSurgical Oncology

Identifiers

PMID29512137
PMCPMC5900867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.