Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are Chemotherapy Patients’ HRQoL Importance Weights Consistent with Linear Scoring Rules? A Stated-choice Approach

  • Value and Preference Assessment
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To compare a linear scoring rule with the subjective importance of different domain and symptom levels of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) among patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: Using a stated-choice or choice-format conjoint analysis survey instrument, we elicited patient preferences for varying levels of physical, role, social, emotional, and cognitive function along with chemotherapy-related side effects and financial difficulties. A total of 375 patients completed the questionnaire: 159 breast cancer, 117 colorectal cancer, 99 non-small-cell lung cancer; and 21 with unknown tumor type. Constrained maximum likelihood estimates were used to estimate relative importance weights for each level of each domain and symptom. Results: Summary HRQoL measures generally presume that differences among Likert categories are equally important to patients within and across outcomes. Our results indicate strong non-linearities both within and across domain and symptom categories. Improvements from severe pain to mild pain, severe fatigue to no fatigue, and severe social limitations to moderate social limitations are all about twice as important as no work to limited work in the Role domain. Conclusions: Our results indicate large differences in the impact of individual domains and symptoms on patient perceptions of well-being. Most cancer patients are likely to be less concerned about specific symptoms than the impact of those symptoms on their ability to function physically, socially, and in their daily roles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NK Aaronson S Ahmedzai B Bergman et al. (1993) ArticleTitleThe European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology J Natl Cancer Instit 85 IssueID5 365–375 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByyC28vivVc%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Study Group: Brussels, Second edition, 1999.

  3. F Wolfe SX Kong (1999) ArticleTitleRasch analysis of the Western Ontario MacMaster Questionnaire (WOMAC) in 2205 patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia Ann Rheum Dis 58 563–568 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1MzovFGntQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10460190

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. F Wolfe K Michaud T Pincus (2004) ArticleTitleDevelopment and validation of the Health Assessment Questionnaire II – A revised version of the Health Assessment Questionnaire Arthritis Rheum 50 3296–3305 Occurrence Handle15476213

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fechner G. Elements of Psychophysics. H. Adler (Trans.). NY: Holt, 1860/1966.

  6. DR Wittink P Cattin (1989) ArticleTitleCommercial use of conjoint analysis: An update J Marketing 53 91–96

    Google Scholar 

  7. SL Szeinbach JH Barnes WF McGhan et al. (1999) ArticleTitleUsing conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences Drug Inf J 33 IssueID3 849–858

    Google Scholar 

  8. FR Johnson MR Banzhaf WH Desvousges (2000) ArticleTitleWillingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: A multiple-format stated-preference approach Health Econ 9 295–317 Occurrence Handle10.1002/1099-1050(200006)9:4<295::AID-HEC520>3.0.CO;2-D Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvgvFGntw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10862074

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. FR Johnson WH Desvousges MC Ruby et al. (1998) ArticleTitleEliciting stated preferences: An application to willingness to pay for longevity Med Decis Making 18 IssueIDSuppl S57–S67 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c3is1Wiug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9566467

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. FR Johnson WH Desvousges (1997) ArticleTitleEstimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: Environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs J Environ Econ Manage 34 79–99 Occurrence Handle10.1006/jeem.1997.1002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. J Ratcliffe (2000) ArticleTitleThe use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16 270–290 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3nsVGitw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10815371

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. M Ryan E McIntosh P Shackley (1998) ArticleTitleMethodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care Health Econ Lett 2 IssueID1 15–21

    Google Scholar 

  13. MF Bingham FR Johnson D Miller (2001) ArticleTitleModeling choice behavior for new pharmaceutical products Value Health 4 IssueID1 32–44 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.004001032.x Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MnltFartw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11704970

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. J Hall P Kenny M King J Louviere R Viney A Yeoh (2002) ArticleTitleUsing stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination Health Econ 11 IssueID5 457–465 Occurrence Handle10.1002/hec.694 Occurrence Handle12112494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. M Ryan S Farrar (2000) ArticleTitleUsing conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care Br Med J 320 IssueID7248 1530–1533 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3psV2msA%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. J Louviere D Hensher J Swait (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  17. R Viney E Savage J Louviere (2005) ArticleTitleEmpirical envestigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care Health Econ 14 IssueID4 349–362 Occurrence Handle10.1002/hec.981 Occurrence Handle15712274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hensher D. Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: An initial assessment. Environ Resour Econ (In press).

  19. J Louviere (1988) Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis Sage Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  20. D Hensher J Louviere J Swait (1999) ArticleTitleCombining sources of preference data J Econometrics 89 197–221

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld W. A General Method for Constructing Efficient Choice Designs. SAS Technical Document TS-694E, 1996, http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/ts694e.pdf.

  22. Orme B. Sample Size Issues for Conjoint Analysis Studies. Sawtooth Software, Inc., 1998. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/samplesz.pdf.

  23. D McFadden (1981) Econometric models of probabilistic choice C Manski D McFadden (Eds) Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications MIT Press Cambridge 198–272

    Google Scholar 

  24. G Baltas P Doyle (2001) ArticleTitleRandom utility models in marketing research: A survey J Bus Res 51 115–125 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00058-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. K Phillips T Maddala FR Johnson (2002) ArticleTitleMeasuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: An application to HIV testing Health Serv Res 37 IssueID6 1681–1705 Occurrence Handle12546292

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. D Hensher J Rose W Greene (2005) Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schoenberg R. Constrained Maximum Likelihood. Aptech Systems, Inc., 1996.

  28. D Osoba M-A Hsu C Copley-Merriman J Coombs R Johnson B Hauber (2006) ArticleTitleStated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life domains during treatment Qual Life Res 15 273–283 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s11136-005-0580-5 Occurrence Handle16468082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. K Train (2003) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  30. K Train G Sonnier (2005) Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths A. Alberini R. Scarpa (Eds) Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental Resource Economics Kluwer Academic Publisher New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. DA Revicki NK Leidy F Brennan-Deimer S Sorensen A Togias (1998a) ArticleTitleIntegrating patient preferences into health outcomes assessment: The multi-attribute asthma symptom utility index Chest 114 998–1007 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FgslSmtg%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. DA Revicki NK Leidy F Brennan-Deimer C Thompson A Togias (1998b) ArticleTitleDevelopment and preliminary validation of a multi-attribute rhinitis symptom utility index Qual Life Res 7 IssueID8 693–702 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1008860113818 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M7pslKqsw%3D%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC

    F. Reed Johnson & A. Brett Hauber

  2. QOL Consulting, West Vancouver, BC

    David Osoba

  3. Outcomes Research, Groton Laboratories, Pfizer Inc., Groton, CT

    Ming-Ann Hsu

  4. Outcomes Research, Pfizer Inc., Ann Arbor, MI

    John Coombs & Catherine Copley-Merriman

  5. RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Institute, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA

    F. Reed Johnson

Authors
  1. F. Reed Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Brett Hauber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Osoba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ming-Ann Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John Coombs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Catherine Copley-Merriman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Reed Johnson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, F.R., Hauber, A.B., Osoba, D. et al. Are Chemotherapy Patients’ HRQoL Importance Weights Consistent with Linear Scoring Rules? A Stated-choice Approach. Qual Life Res 15, 285–298 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-0581-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-0581-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation