Quality of Life Research

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 273–283 | Cite as

Stated Preferences of Patients with Cancer for Health-related Quality-of-life (HRQOL) Domains During Treatment

  • David OsobaEmail author
  • Ming-Ann Hsu
  • Catherine Copley-Merriman
  • John Coombs
  • F. Reed Johnson
  • Brett Hauber
  • Ranjani Manjunath
  • Amanda Pyles
Value and Preference Assessment


Objectives: It is postulated that patients with different cancer diagnoses, stages of disease and treatments will exhibit different individual preferences for health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) functional domains and symptoms. Methods: A stated-preference (SP) instrument incorporating all functional domains and symptoms of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) was administered to 400 patients with either breast (n=150); colorectal (n=150) or non-small cell lung cancer (n=100) who had previously experienced chemotherapy. The SP survey asked patients to make choices between a series of hypothetical functional/symptom pairs defined by combinations of HRQOL attributes, and depicted by levels of functioning and symptomatology. Results: In the 400 patients, considered as one group, role, cognitive, and social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, appetite loss, diarrhea and financial difficulties were most important, whereas physical and emotional functioning, dyspnea, constipation and insomnia were less important. The four effects that patients with breast cancer most wished to avoid were nausea and vomiting, pain, and decreases in emotional and role functioning. Patients with colorectal cancer listed diarrhea as the second most important effect to avoid (after nausea/vomiting, but before pain and role functioning), whereas those with non-small cell lung cancer listed dyspnea as the fourth most important effect to avoid. Conclusion: These results provide more precise information regarding patient treatment concerns than that provided by the usual measurement of HRQOL. This information can be used by clinical trial investigators to design more precise interventions to improve HRQOL in the domains of greatest importance to patients and by all health care professionals to improve counseling of patients.


EORTC QLQ-C30 Health-related quality of life Patient preferences Patient-reported outcomes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Johnson, FR, Desvousges, WH 1997Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: Environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programsJ Environ Econ Manag347999Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ryan, M, Hughes, J 1997Using conjoint analysis to value surgical versus medical management of miscarriageHealth Econ6261273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson, FR, Desvousges, WH, Ruby, MC,  et al. 1998Eliciting stated preferences: An application to willingness to pay for longevityMed Decision Making18S57S67Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ryan, M, McIntosh, E, Shackley, P 1998Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health careHealth Eco Lett21521Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson, FR, Banzhaf, MR, Desvousges, WH 2000Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: A multiple-format stated-preference approachHealth Econ9295317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld WK. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. SAS Institute Market Research Document TS-689D, 1996; ( com/techsup/tnote/tnote_stat.html).
  7. 7.
    Torrance, GW, Furlong, W, Feeny, DH, Boyle, MH 1995Multiattribute preference functions: Health Utilities IndexPharmacoeconomics7503520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Revicki, DA, Leddy, NK, Brennan-Diemer, C,  et al. 1998Development and preliminary validation of the multiattribute Rhinitis Symptom Utility IndexQual Life Res7693702PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Revicki, DA, Leddy, NK, Brennan-Diemer, F,  et al. 1998Integrating patient preferences into health outcomes assessment. The multiattribute Asthma Symptom Utility IndexChest1149981007PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolfe, F, Kong, SX 1999Rasch analysis of the Western Ontario MacMaster Questionnaire (WOMAC) in 2205 patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgiaAnn Rheumatic Diseases58563568Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wolfe, F, Michaud, K, Pincus, T 2004Development and validation of the Health Assessment Questionnaire II – a revised version of the Health Assessment QuestionnaireArth Rheumat5032963305Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griffin, AM, Butow, PN, Coates, AS,  et al. 1996On the receiving end. V: Patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy in 1993Ann Oncol7189195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson, FR, Hauber, AB, Osoba, D,  et al. 2006Are chemotherapy patients’ HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A Stated-Choice ApproachQual Life Res15285298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aaronson, N, Ahmedzai, S, Bergman, B,  et al. 1993The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international trials in oncologyJ Natl Cancer Inst85365376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McFadden, D 1981Econometric models of probabilistic choiceManski, CMcFadden, D eds. Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric ApplicationsMIT PressCambridge198272Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schoenberg R. Constrained Maximum Likelihood. Aptech Systems, Inc. 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fayers, P, Weeden, S, Curran, D 1998EORTC QLQ-C30 Reference ValuesEORTC Quality of Life Study GroupBrusselsEORTC Data CentreGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Louviere, J 1988Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint AnalysisNewbury ParkSageGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Osoba
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ming-Ann Hsu
    • 2
  • Catherine Copley-Merriman
    • 3
  • John Coombs
    • 3
  • F. Reed Johnson
    • 4
  • Brett Hauber
    • 4
  • Ranjani Manjunath
    • 4
  • Amanda Pyles
    • 4
  1. 1.QOL ConsultingWest VancouverCanada
  2. 2.Worldwide Outcomes Research, Groton LaboratoriesPfizer IncGroton
  3. 3.Worldwide Outcomes ResearchPfizer IncAnn Arbor
  4. 4.RTI Health SolutionsResearch Triangle Park

Personalised recommendations