This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Brundage, M. D. Articles by Groome, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brundage, M. D. Articles by Groome, P. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Using a Treatment-tradeoff Method to Elicit Preferences for the Treatment of Locally Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer

Judith R. Davidson

William J. Mackillop

Deb Feldman-Stewart

Patti Groome

The study was designed to evaluate a treatment-tradeoff method for its potential in helping lung cancer patients make treatment decisions. A treatment-tradeoff interview was conducted to determine how patients weighed potential survival benefits against the potential toxicities of different treatment options: 1) low-dose versus high-dose radiotherapy, and 2) high-dose radiotherapy versus combination chemo-radiotherapy. Fifty-six patients who had experienced cancer and 20 clinic staff participated; twenty of these participants repeated the interview in an assessment of response consistency. The treatment-tradeoff method proved feasible: all staff and 53 of the 56 patients were able to complete the process. A wide range of threshold scores across participants was observed for both tradeoffs. Sixty percent of the patients would accept the more toxic combination therapy over high-dose radiotherapy if the former offered a 10% absolute improvement in three-year survival. The method also proved reliable: test-retest correlations were high ( ranged from 0.7 to 0.87 and r from 0.82 to 0.94) and test-retest mean score differences were low (1.3-4.2). The most clinically useful mea sure of consistency was a "preference consistency" index, which revealed that most patients declared the same treatment preference at test and retest. The authors conclude that, while there is great interindividual variability in willingness to accept aggressive treatments for lung cancer, patients' values can be consistently elicited with the tradeoff method. The method has potential for clinical application in decision making and for health-care policy development. Key words: treatment tradeoffs; patient decision making; lung cancer; policy. (Med Decis Making 1998;18:256-267)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 18, No. 3, 256-267 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800302


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. A. Dolan, V. Sabesan, S. L. Weinstein, and K. F. Spratt Preference Assessment of Recruitment into a Randomized Trial for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., December 1, 2008; 90(12): 2594 - 2605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Rohrer, S. H. Lim, and F. A. Bock Medical Condition Is Related to Treatment Preference in Cancer Patients: Implications for Quality Assessment American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, February 1, 2007; 24(1): 36 - 41. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Feldman-Stewart, M. D. Brundage, and V. Zotov Further Insight into the Perception of Quantitative Information: Judgments of Gist in Treatment Decisions Med Decis Making, January 1, 2007; 27(1): 34 - 43. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. J. van Tol-Geerdink, P. F.M. Stalmeier, E. N.J.T. van Lin, E. C. Schimmel, H. Huizenga, W. A.J. van Daal, and J.-W. Leer Do Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Really Want More Aggressive Treatment? J. Clin. Oncol., October 1, 2006; 24(28): 4581 - 4586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. C. Earle Outcomes Research in Lung Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2004; 2004(33): 56 - 77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. D. Brundage, D. Davies, and W. J. Mackillop Prognostic Factors in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer* : A Decade of Progress Chest, September 1, 2002; 122(3): 1037 - 1057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. A. Llewellyn-Thomas, J. M. Paterson, J. A. Carter, A. Basinski, M. G. Myers, G. D. Hardacre, E. V. Dunn, R. B. D'Agostino, P. A. Wolf, and C. D. Naylor Primary Prevention Drug Therapy: Can It Meet Patients' Requirements for Reduced Risk? Med Decis Making, August 1, 2002; 22(4): 326 - 339. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. Brundage, D. Feldman-Stewart, R. Cosby, R. Gregg, P. Dixon, Y. Youssef, D. Davies, and W. J. Mackillop Phase I Study of a Decision Aid for Patients With Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2001; 19(5): 1326 - 1335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. Stiggelbout and J. C.J.M. de Haes Patient Preference for Cancer Therapy: An Overview of Measurement Approaches J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2001; 19(1): 220 - 230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Feldman-Stewart, N. Kocovski, B. A. McConnell, M. D. Brundage, and W. J. Mackillop Perception of Quantitative Information for Treatment Decisions Med Decis Making, April 1, 2000; 20(2): 228 - 238. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. E. Dales, A. O'Connor, P. Hebert, K. Sullivan, D. McKim, and H. Llewellyn-Thomas Intubation and Mechanical Ventilation for COPD: Development of an Instrument To Elicit Patient Preferences Chest, September 1, 1999; 116(3): 792 - 800. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]