ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
Myeloma Patient Value Mapping: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Myeloma Treatment Preferences in the UK.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Understanding Patient Preferences for Medication Process Attributes: A Systematic Literature Review.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Smoldering multiple myeloma: a multi-country mixed-methods study on disease perceptions and patient treatment preferences.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Hematological malignancies.HemaSphere · 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 genuine need or nice to have? Understanding HTA representatives' perspectives on the use of patient preference data.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Patient Preferences for Treatment in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Leukemia in the United Kingdom: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Patient and Healthcare Professional Preferences for Prescription Weight Loss Medications in Australia: Two Discrete Choice Experiments.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Patient preferences, regret, and health-related quality of life among older adults with acute myeloid leukemia: A pilot longitudinal study.Journal of geriatric oncology · 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
- Understanding Treatment Preferences Among People Living with HIV in Australia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Preferences and Priorities for Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Treatments Among Patients and Caregivers in the United States.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- What matters most to patients with multiple myeloma? A Pan-European patient preference study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Understanding the Treatment Preferences of People Living with Schizophrenia in Australia; A Patient Value Mapping Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Treatment of older adult or frail patients with multiple myeloma.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMyeloma is an incurable life-threatening hematological cancer. Recent treatment developments have seen improvements in survival; however, while patients are living longer, they are living with symptoms and treatment side effects.
objectiveTo evaluate myeloma patients' preferences for treatment using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). This study set out to define the relative importance of key treatment attributes, characterize the risk-benefit trade-offs in patients' decision-making, and to analyze the predictive power of basic demographic factors.
methodsFour hundred seventy-five myeloma patients in the UK were invited to participate by Myeloma UK. Data were collected using DCEs through an online survey. The DCEs presented patients with 10 choice scenarios, each with 2 treatment options described by 7 attributes, and a "no treatment" option. The DCE data were modelled using a latent class model (LCM). The effects of demographic characteristics were also examined.
resultsNot surprisingly, average survival was most important to all patients but there were significant contrasts between the class preferences. The LCM revealed two classes of patients. Patients in Class 1 placed greater importance on average survival and mild-to-moderate side effects, whereas patients in Class 2 focused on the mode of administration and the average out-of-pocket costs. Patients living with others and those diagnosed in the last 5 years were more likely to be in Class 1.
conclusionDifferent treatment features were not valued equally among all myeloma patients. This has important implications for healthcare policy decisions and could be used to guide decisions around the value of new myeloma medicines.
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.