ArticleBMC cancer2020
Alignment of preferences in the treatment of multiple myeloma - a discrete choice experiment of patient, carer, physician, and nurse preferences.
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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Differences between physician and patient preferences for cancer treatments: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Real-World Canadian Insights into Pediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency: Perspectives on Daily and Long-Acting Growth Hormone from Patients, Caregivers, and Healthcare Providers.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Quantifying Preferences for CAR-T Compared to Standard of Care as a First-Line Treatment Among Patients With Multiple Myeloma.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- The CarerQol Instrument: A Systematic Review, Validity Analysis, and Generalization Reliability Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Patient preferences for triple-class-exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treatment: a discrete-choice study.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Client preferences in noncommunicable diseases management in Australia: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Healthcare Providers and Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma on Treatment Priorities and Novel Therapies.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Multiple Myeloma Experiences and Preferences: A Mixed Methods Study of Patients and Care Partners in the United States.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- A discrete choice experiment analysis to understand patient preferences for multiple myeloma treatments.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Understanding the experience, treatment preferences and goals of people living with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in Australia.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Leveraging patient experience data to guide medicines development, regulation, access decisions and clinical care in the EU.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Patient, Care Partner, and Physician Voices in Treatment Decision-Making for Multiple Myeloma.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- Treatment preferences of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, and Spain: results from a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Review
- A Focus on Relapsed Multiple Myeloma.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.