An exploration of relative health stock in advanced cancer patients

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 614-624

  Gaskin, Darrell J ^a,h   Weinfurt, Kevin P ^b   Castel, Liana D ^b   DePuy, Venita ^b   Li, Yun ^b   Balshem, Andrew ^d   Benson, Al ^c,d   Burnett, Caroline B ^e   Corbett, Sandra ^c   Marshall, John ^e   Slater, Elyse ^c   Sulmasy, Daniel P ^f   Van Echo, David ^g   Meropol, Neal J ^c   Schulman, Kevin A ^b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f ST VINCENT S HOSPITAL MANHATTAN   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^h JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer; Clinical trials; Decision making; Patient preferences; Phase I trials

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MODEL; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELATIVE HEALTH STOCK; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SAMPLE SIZE; SIDE EFFECT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 8744239250     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04271041     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Gaskin DJ, Kong J, Meropol NJ, Yabroff KR, Weaver C, Schulman KA. Treatment choices by seriously ill patients: the Health Stock Risk Adjustment model. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:84-94.
2. Friedman M, Savage L. The utility analysis of choices involving risk. J Polit Econ. 1948;56:279-304.
3. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263-92.
4. Markowitz H. The utility of wealth. J Polit Econ. 1952;60:151-8.
5. Thaler RH, Shefrin HM. An economic theory of self-control. J Polit Econ. 1980;89:392-406.
6. Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky RL, Siegler M. Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1637-43.
7. Daugherty C, Ratain MJ, Grochowski E, et al. Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:1062-72.
8. Cheng JD, Hitt J, Koczwara B, et al. Impact of quality of life on patient expectations regarding phase I clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:421-8.
9. Meropol NM, Weinfurt KP, Burnett CB, et al. Perceptions of patients and providers regarding phase I cancer clinical trials: implications for physician-patient communication. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2589-96.
10. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep. 1987;17:20-4.
11. Clark DB, Ram MD, MacDonald JS, Rees ED, Engelberg J, Noble RC. How physicians deal with their own impending death. South Med J. 1990;83:441-7.
12. Lind SE, DelVecchio Good MJ, Minkovitz CS, Good BJ. Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies. Br J Cancer. 1991;64:391-5.
13. Mackillop WJ, Palmer MJ, O'Sullivan B, Ward GK, Steele R, Dotsikas G. Clinical trials in cancer: the role of surrogate patients in defining what constitutes an ethically acceptable clinical experiment. Br J Cancer. 1989;59:388-95.
14. Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ, et al. Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. BMJ. 1990;300:1458-60.
15. Agrawal M, Emanuel EJ. Ethics of phase 1 oncology studies: reexamining the arguments and data. JAMA. 2003;290:1075-82.
16. Grossman M. On the concept of health capital and the demand for health. J Polit Econ. 1972;80:168-99.
17. Stiggelbout AM, de Haes JC, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, Leer JW. Trade-offs between quality and quantity of life: development of the QQ Questionnaire for Cancer Patient Attitudes. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:184-92.
18. Weinfurt KP, Castel LD, Li Y, et al. The correlation between patient characteristics and expectations of benefit from phase I clinical trials. Cancer. 2003;98:166-75.
19. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, et al. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.
20. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: How to Score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. Boston: Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1995
21. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220-33.
22. Schafer JL. Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. In: Cox DR, Isham V, Keiding N, Reid N, Tong H, eds. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. Boca Raton (FL): Chapman & Hall/CRC Press; 1997.
23. Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods. 2002;7:147-77.
24. Harrell FE. Regression Modeling Strategies. New York: Springer; 2001.
25. Festinger LA. Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press; 1957.
26. Scheier MF, Carver CS. Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol. 1985;4:219-47.
27. Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG, eds. Adaptation to Changing Health. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association; 2000.