What determines patient preferences for treating low risk basal cell carcinoma when comparing surgery vs imiquimod? A discrete choice experiment survey from the SINS trial

BMC Dermatology

Volumn 12, Issue , 2012, Pages

  Tinelli, Michela ^a   Ozolins, Mara ^b   Bath Hextall, Fiona ^b   Williams, Hywel C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Discrete choice; Imiquimod cream; Nodular and superficial basal cell carcinoma; Patient preferences; Surgery; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

IMIQUIMOD;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BASAL CELL CARCINOMA; CANCER SURGERY; DRUG COST; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HOSPITAL COST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SKIN BURNING SENSATION; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN REDNESS; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADMINISTRATION, CUTANEOUS; AGED; AMINOQUINOLINES; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CARCINOMA, BASAL CELL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK FACTORS; SKIN CREAM; SKIN NEOPLASMS; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE;

EID: 84866920179     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14715945     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-5945-12-19     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Telfer N, Colver G, Morton C. Guidelines for the management of basal cell carcinoma. Br J Dermatol 2008, 159:35-48. 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08666.x, 18593385.
2. Weston A, FitzGerald P. Discrete choice experiment to derive willingness-to-pay for methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy versus simple excision surgery in the treatment of basal cell carcinoma. PharmacoEconomics 2004, 22:1195-1208. 10.2165/00019053-200422180-00004, 15606226.
3. Essers BAB, Van Helvoort-Postulart D, Prins MH, et al. Does the Inclusion of a Cost Attribute Result in Different Preferences for the Surgical Treatment of Primary Basal Cell Carcinoma?: A Comparison of Two Discrete-Choice Experiments. PharmacoEconomics 2010, 28:507-520. 10.2165/11532240-000000000-00000, 20387912.
4. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care 2008, New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
5. Ozolins M, Williams HC, Armstrong SJ, Bath-Hextall FJ. The SINS trial: A randomised controlled trial of excisional surgery versus imiquimod 5% cream for nodular and superficial basal cell carcinoma. Trials 2010, 11:42. 10.1186/1745-6215-11-42, 2877028, 20409337.
6. Wordsworth S, Ryan M, Skåtun D, Waugh N. Women's preferences for cervical cancer screening: A study using a discrete choice experiment. Int J of Technol Assess in Health Care 2006, 22(3):344-350.
7. Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, et al. Measuring Patient Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Using a Choice-Format Survey. Value in Health 2007, 10:415-430. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00196.x, 17888107.
8. Kruijshaar ME, Essink-Bot ML, Donkers B, et al. A labelled discrete choice experiment adds realism to the choices presented: preferences for surveillance tests for Barrett esophagus. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2009, 9:31. 10.1186/1471-2288-9-31, 2695479, 19454022.
9. Van Dam L, Hol L, De Bekker-Grob EW, et al. What determines individuals' preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer 2010, 46:150-159. 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.07.014, 19683432.
10. Hol L, De Bekker-Grob EW, vanDam L, et al. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer 2010, 102:972-980. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605566, 2844026, 20197766.
11. Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?. Health Econ Letters 2000, 9:267-270.
12. Ryan M, Ubach C. Testing for an experience endowment effect in health care. Appl Econ Letters 2003, 10:407-410.
13. Cheraghi-Sohi S, Bower PJ, Mead NJ, et al. Making sense of patient priorities: applying discrete choice methods in primary care using 'think aloud' technique. Fam Pract 2007, 24:276-282. 10.1093/fampra/cmm007, 17478438.
14. Eberth B, Watson V, Ryan M, et al. Does one size fit all? Investigating heterogeneity in men's preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment using mixed logit analysis. Med Decis Making 2009, 29:707-717. 10.1177/0272989X09341754, 19734440.
15. De Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Economics 2010, published online in Wiley online library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
16. Sloane NJA. A library of orthogonal arrays [http://www.research.att.com/~njas/oadir/] [accessed 14/05/12].
17. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated Choice Methods 2000, Cambridge University Press, Analysis and Application.
18. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ. Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs. Transp Rev 2009, 29:587-617.
19. Pearmain D, Swanson J, Kroes E, Bradley M. Stated preferences techniques: a guide to practice 1991, Steer Davis Gleave and Hague Consulting Group: The Hague.
20. SPSS software [URL http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/] [accessed 14/05/12], SPSS software.
21. Biogeme software for discrete choice models [http://biogeme.epfl.ch/accessed 14/05/12], Biogeme software for discrete choice models.
22. Gafni A. Willingness-to-pay as a measure of benefits: relevant questions in the context of public decision making about health care programs. Med Care 1991, 29:1246-1252. 10.1097/00005650-199112000-00007, 1745082.
23. Tinelli M, Ryan M, Bond C. Patient preferences for an increased pharmacist role in the management of drug therapy. Int J Pharm Pract 2009, 17:275-282. 10.1211/ijpp.17.05.0004, 20214269.
24. Boyle KL, Holmes TP, Teisl MF, Roe B. A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am J Agric Econ 2001, 83:441-454.
25. Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W. Applied choice analysis: A primer 2005, 744pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Hensher D, Greene W. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit 2002, Working paper Institute of Transport Studies, Sydney University.