Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38060096›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2024

United States Value Set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Eight Dimensions (FACT-8D), a Cancer-Specific Preference-Based Quality of Life Instrument.

Madeleine T King, D A Revicki, R Norman, F Müller, R C Viney, A S Pickard, D Cella, J W Shaw, MAUCa Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. United Kingdom value set for the functional assessment of cancer therapy eight dimension (FACT-8D) preference-based quality of life instrument.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  2. Cancer-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A validity comparison across six commonly diagnosed cancers.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Assessing the reliability of a novel cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D) and comparing its validity to EQ-5D-5L in colorectal cancer patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  9. 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

9 authors.

Madeleine T KingSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. madeleine.king@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7192-2887
D A RevickiRevicki Outcomes Research Consulting, Sarasota, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6780-0019
R NormanSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3112-3893
F MüllerMedical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0412-7469
R C VineyCentre for Health Economics Research & Evaluation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0039-9635
A S PickardDepartment of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5645-7091
D CellaDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9881-4541
J W ShawPatient-Reported Outcomes Assessment, Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.
MAUCa Consortium

Funding

Bristol-Myers Squibb EVA-20314-001National Health and Medical Research Council PG632662
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop a value set reflecting the United States (US) general population's preferences for health states described by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) eight-dimensions preference-based multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D), derived from the FACT-General cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) questionnaire.

methodsA US online panel was quota-sampled to achieve a general population sample representative by sex, age (≥ 18 years), race and ethnicity. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to value health states. The valuation task involved choosing between pairs of health states (choice-sets) described by varying levels of the FACT-8D HRQL dimensions and survival (life-years). The DCE included 100 choice-sets; each respondent was randomly allocated 16 choice-sets. Data were analysed using conditional logit regression parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework, weighted for sociodemographic variables that were non-representative of the US general population. Preference weights were calculated as the ratio of HRQL-level coefficients to the survival coefficient.

results2562 panel members opted in, 2462 (96%) completed at least one choice-set and 2357 (92%) completed 16 choice-sets. Pain and nausea were associated with the largest utility weights, work and sleep had more moderate utility weights, and sadness, worry and support had the smallest utility weights. Within dimensions, more severe HRQL levels were generally associated with larger weights. A preference-weighting algorithm to estimate US utilities from responses to the FACT-General questionnaire was generated. The worst health state's value was -0.33.

conclusionsThis value set provides US population utilities for health states defined by the FACT-8D for use in evaluating oncology treatments.

Identifiers

PMID38060096
PMCPMC10781923

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.