Does framing of cancer survival affect perceived value of care? A willingness-to-pay survey of US residents

References

• Katz SJ, Hawley ST. From policy to patients and back: surgical treatment decision making for patients with breast cancer. Health Aff. (Millwood) 26(3), 761–769 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Politi MC, Han PK, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med. Decis. Making 27(5), 681–695 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chao LW, Pagan JA, Soldo BJ. End-of-life medical treatment choices: do survival chances and out-of-pocket costs matter? Med. Decis. Making 28(4), 511–523 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubel PA, Berry SR, Nadler E et al. In a survey, marked inconsistency in how oncologists judged value of high-cost cancer drugs in relation to gains in survival. Health Aff. (Millwood) 31(4), 709–717 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studts JL, Abell TD, Roetzer LM, Albers AN, McMasters KM, Chao C. Preferences for different methods of communicating information regarding adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Psychooncology 14(8), 647–660 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lakdawalla DN, Romley JA, Sanchez Y, Maclean JR, Penrod JR, Philipson T. How cancer patients value hope and the implications for cost–effectiveness assessments of high-cost cancer therapies. Health Aff. (Millwood) 31(4), 676–682 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris J, Hammitt JK. Using life expectancy to communicate benefits of health care programs in contingent valuation studies. Med. Decis. Making 21(6), 468–478 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peters E, Hibbard J, Slovic P, Dieckmann N. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Aff. (Millwood) 26(3), 741–748 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann. Intern. Med. 127(11), 966–972 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O´Connor AM, Boyd NF, Tritchler DL, Kriukov Y, Sutherland H, Till JE. Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments. The influence of framing, medium, and rater variables. Med. Decis. Making 5(4), 453–463 (1985).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC Jr, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N. Engl. J. Med. 306(21), 1259–1262 (1982).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong K, Schwartz JS, Fitzgerald G, Putt M, Ubel PA. Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: survival and mortality curves. Med. Decis. Making 22(1), 76–83 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R. Presenting risk information – a review of the effects of ‘framing’ and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J. Health Commun. 6(1), 61–82 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J et al. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 3, CD006776 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leighl N, Gattellari M, Butow P, Brown R, Tattersall MH. Discussing adjuvant cancer therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 19(6), 1768–1778 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wills CE, Holmes-Rovner M. Patient comprehension of information for shared treatment decision making: state of the art and future directions. Patient Educ. Couns. 50(3), 285–290 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg D, Earle C, Fang CH, Eldar-Lissai A, Neumann PJ. When is cancer care cost-effective? A systematic overview of cost-utility analyses in oncology. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102(2), 82–88 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim P. Cost of cancer care: the patient perspective. J. Clin. Oncol. 25(2), 228–232 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Wong YN, Hamilton O, Egleston B, Salador K, Murphy C, Meropol NJ. Understanding how out-of-pocket expenses, treatment value, and patient characteristics influence treatment choices. Oncologist 15(6), 566–576 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dranitsaris G, Elia-Pacitti J, Cottrell W. Measuring treatment preferences and willingness to pay for docetaxel in advanced ovarian cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 22(6), 375–387 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang W, Lawrence WF, Burnett CB et al. Acceptability of diagnostic tests for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 79(2), 199–206 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weston A, Fitzgerald P. Discrete choice experiment to derive willingness to pay for methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy versus simple excision surgery in basal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics 22(18), 1195–1208 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard K, Salkeld G. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value Health 12(2), 354–363 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortega A, Dranitsaris G, Puodziunas AL. What are cancer patients willing to pay for prophylactic epoetin alfa? A cost-benefit analysis. Cancer 83(12), 2588–2596 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith RD. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ. 12(8), 609–628 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausman J. Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. J. Econ. Perspect. 26(4), 43–56 (2012).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson RT. Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren’t available. J. Econ. Perspect. 26(4), 27–42 (2012).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2009. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann V, Boeck S, Hinke A, Labianca R, Louvet C. Meta-analysis of randomized trials: evaluation of benefit from gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy applied in advanced pancreatic cancer. BMC Cancer 8, 82 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Scott DA, Donaldson C. Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. J. Health Econ. 23(2), 237–258 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamee P, Ternent L, Gbangou A, Newlands D. A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method. Health Econ. 19(1), 75–87 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennis JM. KnowledgePanel: Processes & Procedures Contributing to Sample Representativeness & Tests for Self-Selection Bias. (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Hammitt JK et al. Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents. Health Econ. 21(3), 238–251 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammitt JK, Zhou Y, The economic value of air-pollution-related health risks in China: A contingent valuation study Environ. Resour. Econ 33(3), 399–423 (2006).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerlin A, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am. J. Health Behavior 31(Suppl. 1), S47–S56 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med. Decis. Making 25(4), 398–405 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trevena L, Zikmund-Fisher B, Edwards A et al. Presenting probabilities. In: Update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s Background Document. Chapter C. Volk R, Llewellyn-Thomas H (Eds.). (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Siminoff LA, Fetting JH, Abeloff MD. Doctor-patient communication about breast cancer adjuvant therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 7(9), 1192–1200 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine M, Whelan T. Decision-making process–communicating risk/benefits: is there an ideal technique? J. Natl Cancer Inst. Monogr. 30, 143–145 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Hack TF, Degner LF, Parker PA; SCRN Communication Team. The communication goals and needs of cancer patients: a review. Psychooncology 14(10), 831–845; discussion 846–837 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman D, Lakdawalla D, Philipson TJ, Yin W. Valuing health technologies at NICE: recommendations for improved incorporation of treatment value in HTA. Health Econ. 19(10), 1109–1116 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar