Health Outcomes Research in Medicine
Volume 1, Issue 1 , Pages e51-e59, July 2010

Preferences of Patients and Oncologists for Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treatment-Related Health States

  • Lisa M. Hess, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
    • Departments of Public Health and Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding Author: Lisa M. Hess, PhD, Department of Public Health, Indiana University School of Medicine, 714 North Senate Avenue EF250; Indianapolis, IN 46202.
  • ,
  • Daniel C. Malone, PhD

      Affiliations

    • College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
  • ,
  • Pamela G. Reed, PhD

      Affiliations

    • College of Nursing, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
  • ,
  • Grant Skrepnek, PhD

      Affiliations

    • College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
  • ,
  • Karen Weihs, MD

      Affiliations

    • Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
    • College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

published online 17 May 2010.

Abstract 

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare expected utility preferences of various health outcomes of chemotherapy treatment among ovarian-cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, ovarian cancer patients who were post-treatment (eg, under surveillance), and oncologists who treat this disease.

Methods

Participants were asked to score 6 hypothetical ovarian cancer treatment-related health states using both a rating scale and the standard gamble. Scores were obtained in the range of 0.0 (death) to 1.0 (perfect health) for each hypothetical health state, with a difference of 0.10 being practically meaningful, and were analyzed by analysis of variance.

Results

Seventy-five eligible participants were included in this study (41 ovarian-cancer patients and 34 oncologists). Patients and physicians reported similar responses in the rating scale exercise (F=0.854, P=.43). However, when the health states were presented with an element of uncertainty via the standard gamble exercise, patients who were under surveillance reported significantly different expected utilities of the health states from physicians and from patients who were receiving treatment, demonstrating greater risk aversion than the other groups (F=4.270, P=.018).

Conclusions

This study suggests that there are significant differences in expected utility preferences among patients who are under surveillance as opposed to oncologists or patients receiving treatment, despite similarities in rating scale values. These findings suggest a need to further evaluate these differences in expected utility preferences in the context of decision in the setting of recurrent disease, where a patient under surveillance must make decisions related to re-initiation of therapy at a time when her preferences are likely to significantly differ from those of oncologists.

Keywords: Expected utility, Oncology, Ovarian cancer

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This study was supported by the Better than Ever Research Fund at the Arizona Cancer Center Division of Women’s Cancers, which had no role in the design, analysis, writing or interpretation of this study.

 None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose.

PII: S1877-1319(10)00005-4

doi:10.1016/j.ehrm.2010.02.001

Health Outcomes Research in Medicine
Volume 1, Issue 1 , Pages e51-e59, July 2010