Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32527324›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

Alignment of preferences in the treatment of multiple myeloma - a discrete choice experiment of patient, carer, physician, and nurse preferences.

Simon J Fifer, Kerrie-Anne Ho, Sean Lybrand, Laurie J Axford, Steve Roach

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Real-world patient-reported outcomes and concordance between patient and physician reporting of side effects across lines of therapy in multiple myeloma within the USA.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. A Focus on Relapsed Multiple Myeloma.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2022
    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.

Simon J FiferCaPPRe, Level 28, 161 Castlereagh St, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. simon.fifer@cappre.com.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5221-0067
Kerrie-Anne HoCaPPRe, Level 28, 161 Castlereagh St, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.
Sean LybrandAmgen Australia, 123 Epping Rd, Macquarie Park, NSW, 2113, Australia.
Laurie J AxfordCaPPRe, Level 28, 161 Castlereagh St, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.
Steve RoachMyeloma Australia, 333 Swan St, Richmond, Victoria, 3121, Australia.

Funding

Amgen Australia N/ACelgene Australia N/AJanssen Australia N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple Myeloma (MM) is a cancer characterised by the proliferation of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow. This study examined the treatment preferences of people living with MM compared to the treatment preferences of other groups involved in treatment decision making, including carers, as well as physicians and nurses who treat people living with MM in Australia.

methodsData were collected using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) through an online survey. The DCEs presented participants with a traditional treatment generic choice experiment (e.g., treatment A vs treatment B), focusing on the clinical benefits of treatments and the associated risks. The attributes and levels of the attributes were selected based on previous research, literature review, qualitative research and expert opinion. The DCE data were modelled using a Latent Class Model (LCM).

resultsThe model revealed significant heterogeneity in preferences for treatment attributes. In particular, overall survival, remission period and annual out of pocket cost were the attributes with the most variation. In comparison to people living with MM, carers were less cost-sensitive and more concerned with quality of life (remission period). Physicians and nurses were generally more concerned with overall survival and more cost sensitive than people living with MM.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that not all people living with MM valued the same treatment attributes equally. Further, not all groups involved in MM treatment decision making had preference alignment on all treatment attributes. This has important implications for healthcare policy decisions and shared decision making. Results from this study could be used to guide decisions around the value of new MM medicines or the medical plan surrounding the needs of those living with MM, as well as those caring for them.

Indexed as

HematologyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaCaregiversChoice BehaviorFemaleHealth ExpendituresHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultiple MyelomaNursesPatient PreferencePhysiciansCarer preferencesConjoint analysisDiscrete choice experimentMultiple myelomaNurse preferencesPatient preferencesPhysician preferences

Identifiers

PMID32527324
PMCPMC7291736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.