What Matters to Women When Making Decisions About Breast Cancer Chemoprevention?
- 181 Downloads
Despite the effectiveness of chemoprevention (tamoxifen and raloxifene) in preventing breast cancer among women at high risk for the disease, uptake is low. The objective of this study was to determine the tradeoff preferences for various attributes associated with chemoprevention among women not currently taking the drugs.
We used rating-based conjoint analysis to evaluate the relative importance of a number of attributes associated with chemoprevention, including risk of side effects, drug effectiveness, time needed to take the drugs, and availability of a blood test to see if the drugs were working in an Internet sample of women. We generated mean importance values and part-worth utilities for all attribute levels associated with taking chemoprevention. We then used multivariable linear regression to examine attribute importance scores controlling for participant age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, educational level, and a family history of breast cancer.
Overall interest in taking chemoprevention was low among the 1094 women included in the analytic sample, even for the scenario in which participants would receive the greatest benefit and fewest risks associated with taking the drugs. Time needed to take the pill for it to work and 5-year risk of breast cancer were the most important attributes driving tradeoff preferences between the chemoprevention scenarios.
Interest in taking chemoprevention among this sample of women at average risk was low. Addressing women’s concerns about the time needed to take chemoprevention for it to work may help clinicians improve uptake of the drugs among those likely to benefit.
- 4.Chlebowski RT, Col N, Winer EP, Collyar DE, Cummings SR, Vogel VG, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(15):3328–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM, Cecchini RS, Atkins JN, et al. Update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial: preventing breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2010;3(6):696–706.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Ryan M, Scott D, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen E, Russell E, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2001;5(5):1–186.Google Scholar
- 28.Curry J. Understanding conjoint analysis in 15 minutes. Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 1996.Google Scholar
- 32.Orme B. Formulating attributes and levels in conjoint analysis. Sequin: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2002.Google Scholar
- 34.Wouters H, Van Dijk L, Van Geffen ECG, Gardarsdottir H, Stiggelbout AM, Bouvy ML. Primary-care patients’ trade-off preferences with regard to antidepressants. Psychol Med. 2014 (Epub 7 Jan).Google Scholar
- 43.Orme BK, Alpert MI, Christensen E. Assessing the validity of conjoint analysis—continued. Sequin: Sawtooth Software Inc.; 1997.Google Scholar
- 46.Campitelli MA, Chiarelli AM, Mirea L, Stewart L, Glendon G, Ritvo P, et al. Adherence to breast and ovarian cancer screening recommendations for female relatives from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2011;20(6):492–500.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 47.Chrzan K, Orme B. An overview and comparison of design stratgies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2000.Google Scholar
- 49.Orme B. Interpreting conjoint analysis data. Software Research Paper Series 2002. Sequin: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2002.Google Scholar