Top

Gepubliceerd in:

11-12-2023

QALY-type preference and willingness-to-pay among end-of-life patients with cancer treatments: a pilot study using discrete choice experiment

Auteurs: Yue Yin, Qian Peng, Longhao Ma, Yi Dong, Yinan Sun, Silu Xu, Nianyang Ding, Xiaolin Liu, Mingye Zhao, Yaqian Tang, Zhiqing Mei, Hanqiao Shao, Dan Yan, Wenxi Tang

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2024

Abstract

Purpose

Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a dominant measurement of health gain in economic evaluations for pricing drugs. However, end-of-life (EoL) patients’ preference for QALY gains in life expectancy (LE) and quality of life (QoL) during different disease stages remains unknown and is seldom involved in decision-making. This study aims to measure preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) towards different types of QALY gain among EoL cancer patients.

Methods

We attributed QALY gain to four types, gain in LE and QoL, respectively, and during both progression-free survival (PFS) and post-progression survival (PPS).

A discrete choice experiment including five attributes (the four QALY attributes and one cost attribute) with three levels each was developed and conducted with 85 Chinese advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients in 2022. All levels were set with QALY gain/cost synthesised from research on anti-lung cancer drugs recently listed by Chinese National Healthcare Security Administration. Each respondent answered six choice tasks in a face-to-face interview. The data were analysed using mixed logit models.

Results

Patients valued LE-related QALY gain in PFS most, with a relative importance of 81.8% and a WTP of $43,160 [95% CI 26,751 ~ 59,569] per QALY gain. Respondents consistently preferred LE-related to QoL-related QALY gain regardless of disease stage. Patients with higher income or lower education levels tended to pay more for QoL-related QALY gain.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest a prioritised resource allocation to EoL-prolonging health technologies. Given the small sample size and large individual heterogeneity, a full-scale study is needed to provide more robust results.

vorige artikel Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Chinese standardized outcomes in nephrology–hemodialysis fatigue (C-SONG–HD fatigue) scale: a study of Chinese patients undergoing hemodialysis

volgende artikel Response shift in coronary artery disease

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Lancsar, E., Gu, Y., Gyrd-Hansen, D., Butler, J., Ratcliffe, J., Bulfone, L., & Donaldson, C. (2020). The relative value of different QALY types. Journal of Health Economics, 70, 102303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102303CrossRefPubMed

Whitehead, S. J., & Ali, S. (2010). Health outcomes in economic evaluation: The QALY and utilities. British medical bulletin, 96(1), 5–21.PubMedCrossRef

Weinstein, M. C. (1988). A QALY is a QALY is a QALY—or is it? Journal of Health Economics, 7, 289.PubMedCrossRef

Gu, Y., Lancsar, E., Ghijben, P., Butler, J. R., & Donaldson, C. (2015). Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent. Social Science and Medicine, 146, 41–52.PubMedCrossRef

Shah, K. K. (2009). Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature. Health Policy, 93(2–3), 77–84.PubMedCrossRef

Dolan, P., Shaw, R., Tsuchiya, A., & Williams, A. (2005). QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: A methodological review of the literature. Health Economics, 14(2), 197–208.PubMedCrossRef

Schwappach, D. L. B. (2002). Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: A review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expectations, 5(3), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00182.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bognar, G. (2010). Does cost effectiveness analysis unfairly discriminate against people with disabilities? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 27(4), 394–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2010.00495.xCrossRef

Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. (2018). The QALY: rewarding the care that most improves patients’ lives. Boston: Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

10.

Basu, A., Carlson, J., & Veenstra, D. (2020). Health years in total: A new health objective function for cost-effectiveness analysis. Value in Health, 23(1), 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.10.014CrossRefPubMed

11.

Carlson, J. J., Brouwer, E. D., Kim, E., Wright, P., & McQueen, R. B. (2020). Alternative approaches to quality-adjusted life-year estimation within standard cost-effectiveness models: Literature review, feasibility assessment, and impact evaluation. Value in Health, 23(12), 1523–1533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.08.2092CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mason, H., Jones-Lee, M., & Donaldson, C. (2009). Modelling the monetary value of a QALY: A new approach based on UK data. Health Economics, 18(8), 933–950. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1416CrossRefPubMed

13.

Shah, K. K., Tsuchiya, A., & Wailoo, A. J. (2015). Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment. Social Science and Medicine, 124, 48–56.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Reckers-Droog, V., van Exel, J., & Brouwer, W. (2021). Willingness to pay for quality and length of life gains in end of life patients of different ages. Social Science and Medicine, 279, 113987.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Pennington, M., Baker, R., Brouwer, W., Mason, H., Hansen, D. G., Robinson, A., Donaldson, C., EuroVaQ Team. (2015). Comparing WTP values of different types of QALY gain elicited from the general public. Health Economics, 24(3), 280–293.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Fischer, B., Telser, H., & Zweifel, P. (2018). End-of-life healthcare expenditure: Testing economic explanations using a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Health Economics, 60, 30–38.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Broglio, K. R., & Berry, D. A. (2009). Detecting an overall survival benefit that is derived from progression-free survival. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 101(23), 1642–1649.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

18.

Nafees, B., Lloyd, A. J., Dewilde, S., Rajan, N., & Lorenzo, M. (2017). Health state utilities in non–small cell lung cancer: An international study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.12477CrossRefPubMed

19.

Chouaid, C., Agulnik, J., Goker, E., Herder, G. J., Lester, J. F., Vansteenkiste, J., Finnern, H. W., Lungershausen, J., Eriksson, J., & Kim, K. (2013). Health-related quality of life and utility in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: A prospective cross-sectional patient survey in a real-world setting. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 8(8), 997–1003.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., Strobe Initiative. (2014). Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. International Journal of Surgery (London, England), 12(12), 1500–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.014CrossRefPubMed

21.

Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2008). Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics, 26(8), 661–677. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004CrossRefPubMed

22.

Xia, C., Dong, X., Li, H., Cao, M., Sun, D., He, S., Yang, F., Yan, X., Zhang, S., & Li, N. (2022). Cancer statistics in China and United States, 2022: profiles, trends, and determinants. Chinese Medical Journal, 135(05), 584–590.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

23.

Sher, T., Dy, G. K., & Adjei, A. A. (2008). Small cell lung cancer. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 83(3), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.4065/83.3.355CrossRefPubMed

24.

Flynn, T. N. (2010). Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: Recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 10(3), 259–267.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Baker, R., Bateman, I., Donaldson, C., Jones-Lee, M., Lancsar, E., Loomes, G., Mason, H., Odejar, M., Pinto Prades, J. L., & Robinson, A. (2010). Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the social value of a QALY project. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 14(27), 1–162.PubMed

26.

Prieto, L., & Sacristán, J. A. (2003). Problems and solutions in calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1(1), 1–8.CrossRef

27.

Hayashi, H., Okamoto, I., Morita, S., Taguri, M., & Nakagawa, K. (2012). Postprogression survival for first-line chemotherapy of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Annals of Oncology, 23(6), 1537–1541.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Cheng, Y., He, Y., Li, W., Zhang, H., Zhou, Q., Wang, B., Liu, C., Walding, A., Saggese, M., & Huang, X. (2021). Osimertinib versus comparator EGFR TKI as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC: FLAURA China, a randomized study. Targeted Oncology, 16(2), 165–176.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

29.

Han, B., Li, K., Wang, Q., Zhang, L., Shi, J., Wang, Z., Cheng, Y., He, J., Shi, Y., Zhao, Y., & Sun, Y. (2018). Effect of anlotinib as a third-line or further treatment on overall survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: The ALTER 0303 phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncology, 4(11), 1569–1575. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3039CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Lu, S., Li, W., Zhou, C., Hu, C. P., Qin, S., Cheng, G., Feng, J., Wang, J., Cseh, A., Peil, B., & Gibson, N. (2018). Afatinib vs erlotinib for second-line treatment of Chinese patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. OncoTargets and Therapy, 11, 8565.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

31.

Mok, T. S., Wu, Y. L., Ahn, M. J., Garassino, M. C., Kim, H. R., Ramalingam, S. S., Shepherd, F. A., He, Y., Akamatsu, H., Theelen, W. S., & Lee, C. K. (2017). Osimertinib or platinum–pemetrexed in EGFR T790M–positive lung cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 376(7), 629–640.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Papadimitrakopoulou, V. A., Mok, T. S., Han, J. Y., Ahn, M. J., Delmonte, A., Ramalingam, S. S., Kim, S. W., Shepherd, F. A., Laskin, J., He, Y., & Akamatsu, H. (2020). Osimertinib versus platinum–pemetrexed for patients with EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC and progression on a prior EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor: AURA3 overall survival analysis. Annals of Oncology, 31(11), 1536–1544.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Shaw, A. T., Kim, T. M., Crinò, L., Gridelli, C., Kiura, K., Liu, G., Novello, S., Bearz, A., Gautschi, O., Mok, T., & Nishio, M. (2017). Ceritinib versus chemotherapy in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer previously given chemotherapy and crizotinib (ASCEND-5): A randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology, 18(7), 874–886.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Wu, Y. L., Xu, C. R., Hu, C. P., Feng, J., Lu, S., Huang, Y., Li, W., Hou, M., Shi, J. H., Märten, A., & Fan, J. (2018). Afatinib versus gemcitabine/cisplatin for first-line treatment of Chinese patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harboring EGFR mutations: subgroup analysis of the LUX-Lung 6 trial. OncoTargets and Therapy, 11, 8575.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

35.

Wu, Y. L., Lu, S., Lu, Y., Zhou, J., Shi, Y. K., Sriuranpong, V., Ho, J. C., Ong, C. K., Tsai, C. M., Chung, C. H., & Wilner, K. D. (2018). Results of PROFILE 1029, a phase III comparison of first-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in East Asian patients with ALK-positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 13(10), 1539–1548.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Zhou, C., Chen, G., Huang, Y., Zhou, J., Lin, L., Feng, J., Wang, Z., Shu, Y., Shi, J., Hu, Y., & Wang, Q. (2021). Camrelizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed versus chemotherapy alone in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (CameL): A randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 9(3), 305–314.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Zhou, C., Kim, S. W., Reungwetwattana, T., Zhou, J., Zhang, Y., He, J., Yang, J. J., Cheng, Y., Lee, S. H., Bu, L., & Xu, T. (2019). Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated Asian patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ALESIA): A randomised phase 3 study. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 7(5), 437–446.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Zhou, C., Wu, Y. L., Chen, G., Liu, X., Zhu, Y., Lu, S., Feng, J., He, J., Han, B., Wang, J., & Jiang, G. (2015). BEYOND: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase III study of first-line carboplatin/paclitaxel plus bevacizumab or placebo in Chinese patients with advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 33(19), 2197–2204.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Zhou, C., Wu, Y. L., Chen, G., Feng, J., Liu, X. Q., Wang, C., Zhang, S., Wang, J., Zhou, S., Ren, S., & Lu, S. (2015). Final overall survival results from a randomised, phase III study of erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802). Annals of Oncology, 26(9), 1877–1883.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Zhou, C., Wu, Y. L., Chen, G., Feng, J., Liu, X. Q., Wang, C., Zhang, S., Wang, J., Zhou, S., Ren, S., & Lu, S. (2011). Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. The Lancet Oncology, 12(8), 735–742.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Cai, H., Zhang, L., Li, N., Chen, S., Zheng, B., Yang, J., Weng, L., & Liu, M. B. (2019). Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib as first-line treatment and sequential therapy for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clinical Therapeutics, 41(2), 280–290.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Guan, H., Liu, G., Xie, F., Sheng, Y., & Shi, L. (2019). Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib as a second-line treatment in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in China. Clinical Therapeutics, 41(11), 2308–2320.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Li, X., Li, W., & Hou, L. (2019). A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer in China. Value in Health Regional Issues, 18, 1–7.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Liu, M., Zhang, L., Huang, Q., Li, N., Zheng, B., & Cai, H. (2019). Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Management and Research, 11, 9195.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

45.

You, J. H., Cho, W. C., Ming, W., Li, Y., Kwan, C., Au, K., & Au, J. S. (2021). EGFR mutation-guided use of afatinib, erlotinib and gefitinib for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Hong Kong—A cost-effectiveness analysis. PLoS ONE, 16(3), e0247860.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

46.

Zhu, C., Xing, X., Wu, B., Liang, G., Han, G., Lin, C., & Fang, H. (2021). Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone as the first-line treatment in patients with IIIB–IV non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR and ALK alteration from a perspective of health-care system in China. Frontiers in pharmacology, 12, 735536.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

47.

Campbell, D., & Erdem, S. (2019). Including opt-out options in discrete choice experiments: Issues to consider. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0324-6CrossRefPubMed

48.

Johnson, F. R., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., Mühlbacher, A., Regier, D. A., Bresnahan, B. W., Kanninen, B., & Bridges, J. F. (2013). Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value in Health, 16(1), 3–13.CrossRef

49.

Orme, B. (1998). Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies. Sequim: Sawtooth Software Technical Paper.

50.

Ahlheim, M., & Neidhardt, J. (n.d.). Non-trading behaviour in choice experiments.

51.

Hess, S., Rose, J. M., & Polak, J. (2010). Non-trading, lexicographic and inconsistent behaviour in stated choice data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15(7), 405–417.CrossRef

52.

Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press.

53.

Soekhai, V., De Bekker-Grob, E. W., Ellis, A. R., & Vass, C. M. (2019). Discrete choice experiments in health economics: Past, present and future. PharmacoEconomics, 37(2), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2CrossRefPubMed

54.

Christiadi, B. C. (n.d.). Conditional Logit, IIA, and Alternatives for Estimating Models of Interstate Migration.

55.

Jourdain, D., Lairez, J., Striffler, B., & Affholder, F. (2020). Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: A choice experiment approach. Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, 101(4), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-020-00100-4CrossRef

56.

Dahlberg, M., & Eklöf, M. (2003). Relaxing the IIA assumption in locational choice models: A comparison between conditional logit, mixed logit, and multinomial probit models. Nationalekonomiska Institutionen.

57.

Hensher, D. A., & Greene, W. H. (2003). The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation, 30(2), 133–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022558715350CrossRef

58.

Crouch, G. I., & Louviere, J. J. (2004). The determinants of convention site selection: A logistic choice model from experimental data. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 118–130.CrossRef

59.

Lancsar, E., Louviere, J., & Flynn, T. (2007). Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Social Science and Medicine, 64(8), 1738–1753.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Hole, A. R., & Kolstad, J. R. (2012). Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: A comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment. Empirical Economics, 42(2), 445–469.CrossRef

61.

Giergiczny, M., Valasiuk, S., Czajkowski, M., De Salvo, M., & Signorello, G. (2012). Including cost income ratio into utility function as a way of dealing with ‘exploding’implicit prices in mixed logit models. Journal of Forest Economics, 18(4), 370–380.CrossRef

62.

Statistical Communiqué of the People’s Republic of China on the 2021 National Economic and Social Development. (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2023, from http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202202/t20220227_1827963.html.

63.

Nation’s 2021 GDP tops 110t yuan, up 8.1%. (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2023, from https://english.www.gov.cn/news/topnews/202201/18/content_WS61e5fb9bc6d09c94e48a3cc8.html.

64.

Asioli, D., Almli, V. L., & Næs, T. (2016). Comparison of two different strategies for investigating individual differences among consumers in choice experiments. A case study based on preferences for iced coffee in Norway. Food Quality and Preference, 54, 79–89.CrossRef

65.

Li, L., Long, D., Rad, M. R., & Sloggy, M. R. (2021). Stay-at-home orders and the willingness to stay home during the COVID-19 pandemic: A stated-preference discrete choice experiment. PLoS ONE, 16(7), e0253910. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253910CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

66.

Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines: China Mainland. (n.d.). ISPOR|International Society For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Retrieved March 13, 2023, from https://www.ispor.org/heor-resources/more-heor-resources/pharmacoeconomic-guidelines/pe-guideline-detail/china-mainland.

67.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2009). Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

68.

Hansen, L. D., & Kjær, T. (2019). Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: Further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium. Social Science and Medicine, 236, 112375.PubMedCrossRef

69.

McHugh, N., Pinto-Prades, J. L., Baker, R., Mason, H., & Donaldson, C. (2020). Exploring the relative value of end of life QALYs: Are the comparators important? Social Science and Medicine, 245, 112660.PubMedCrossRef

70.

Shah, K. K., Tsuchiya, A., & Wailoo, A. J. (2014). Valuing health at the end of life: An empirical study of public preferences. The European Journal of Health Economics, 15(4), 389–399.PubMedCrossRef

71.

Pinto-Prades, J.-L., Sánchez-Martínez, F.-I., Corbacho, B., & Baker, R. (2014). Valuing QALYs at the end of life. Social Science and Medicine, 113, 5–14.PubMedCrossRef

72.

Coast, J. (2014). Strategies for the economic evaluation of end-of-life care: Making a case for the capability approach. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 14(4), 473–482.PubMedCrossRef

73.

Ye, Z., Abduhilil, R., Huang, J., & Sun, L. (2022). Willingness to pay for one additional quality adjusted life year: A population based survey from China. Applied health economics and health policy, 20(6), 893–904.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

74.

Grutters, J. P., Joore, M. A., Wiegman, E. M., Langendijk, J. A., De Ruysscher, D., Hochstenbag, M., Botterweck, A., Lambin, P., & Pijls-Johannesma, M. (2010). Health-related quality of life in patients surviving non-small cell lung cancer. Thorax, 65(10), 903–907.PubMedCrossRef

75.

Shen, Y., Wu, B., Wang, X., & Zhu, J. (2018). Health state utilities in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 7(5), 443–452.PubMedCrossRef

76.

Smith, A. B., Cocks, K., Taylor, M., & Parry, D. (2013). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in oncology: A meta-analysis. Value in Health, 16(7), A323–A324.CrossRef

77.

Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Young, T., Gaugris, S., Craig, B. M., King, M. T., & Velikova, G. (2011). Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value in Health, 14(5), 721–731.PubMedCrossRef

78.

King, M. T., Costa, D. S. J., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D. F., Fayers, P. M., Grimison, P., Janda, M., Kemmler, G., & Norman, R. (2016). QLU-C10D: A health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 625–636.PubMedCrossRef

79.

Lew, D. K., & Whitehead, J. C. (2020). Attribute non-attendance as an information processing strategy in stated preference choice experiments: origins, current practices, and future directions. Marine Resource Economics, 35(3), 285–317. https://doi.org/10.1086/709440CrossRef

80.

Hole, A. R., Norman, R., & Viney, R. (2016). Response patterns in health state valuation using endogenous attribute attendance and latent class analysis. Health Economics, 25(2), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3134CrossRefPubMed

Titel: QALY-type preference and willingness-to-pay among end-of-life patients with cancer treatments: a pilot study using discrete choice experiment
Auteurs: Yue Yin
Qian Peng
Longhao Ma
Yi Dong
Yinan Sun
Silu Xu
Nianyang Ding
Xiaolin Liu
Mingye Zhao
Yaqian Tang
Zhiqing Mei
Hanqiao Shao
Dan Yan
Wenxi Tang
Publicatiedatum: 11-12-2023
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03562-3

Letter to the Editor

Measurement equivalence of the English and French versions of the self-efficacy to manage chronic disease scale: a Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network (SPIN) study

Danish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument

Open Access

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

QALY-type preference and willingness-to-pay among end-of-life patients with cancer treatments: a pilot study using discrete choice experiment

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2024

Sexual quality of life after gynaecological cancer: what young women want

Mapping IWQOL-Lite onto EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 among overweight and obese population in China

Using parameter perturbation to facilitate transparency in measure development

Measurement equivalence of the English and French versions of the self-efficacy to manage chronic disease scale: a Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network (SPIN) study

Danish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument

Development of the PROMIS pediatric stigma and extension to the PROMIS pediatric stigma: skin item banks

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Sexual quality of life after gynaecological cancer: what young women want

Mapping IWQOL-Lite onto EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 among overweight and obese population in China

Using parameter perturbation to facilitate transparency in measure development

Measurement equivalence of the English and French versions of the self-efficacy to manage chronic disease scale: a Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network (SPIN) study

Danish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument

Development of the PROMIS pediatric stigma and extension to the PROMIS pediatric stigma: skin item banks