Myeloma Patient Value Mapping: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Myeloma Treatment Preferences in the UK

References

• Palumbo A, Anderson K. Multiple Myeloma. N Eng J Med. 2011;364(11):1046–1060. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1011442
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cancer Research UK. Myeloma Statistics. 2013 Available from: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/myeloma. Accessed July 4, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne TR, Ramsenthaler C, Siegert RJ, et al. What issues matter most to people with multiple myeloma and how well are we measuring them? A systematic review of quality of life tools. Eur J Haematol. 2012;89(6):437–457. doi:10.1111/ejh.12012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnsen AT, Tholstrup D, Petersen MA, et al. Health related quality of life in a nationally representative sample of haematological patients. Eur J Haematol. 2009;83(2):139–148. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0609.2009.01250.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muhlbacher AC, Nubling M. Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):193–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantyselka P, Kumpusalo E, Ahonen R, et al. Pain as a reason to visit the doctor: a study in Finnish primary health care. Pain. 2001;89(2–3):175–180. doi:10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00361-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suarez-Almazor ME, Conner-Spady B, Kendall CJ, et al. Lack of congruence in the ratings of patients’ health status by patients and their physicians. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(2):113–121. doi:10.1177/02729890122062361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, et al. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2015;8(5):373–384. doi:10.1007/s40271-015-0118-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge University Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–413. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;4(34):273–286. doi:10.1037/h0070288
   Google Scholar
• McFadden DL. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Analysis, Ed. F.i. Econometrics. New York Academic Press; 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Lancaster KJ. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. J Political Economy. 1966;74:132–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher DA, Rose J. Choice Modelling: Foundational Contributions. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Marketing Res. 1983;20(4):350–367. doi:10.1177/002224378302000403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Hensher DA. On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transp Res Rec. 1982;890(1982):11–17.
   Google Scholar
• Hess S, Daly A. Handbook of Choice Modelling. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Soekhai V, de Bekker-grob EW, Ellis AR, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(2):201–226. doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer S, Mueller S, Ratsch B, et al. Patient preferences regarding treatment options for relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Value Health. 2017;20(9):A451. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.299
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlbacher AC, Lincke H-J, Nübling M. Evaluating Patients’ Preferences for Multiple Myeloma Therapy, a Discrete-Choice-Experiment. Vol. 5. GMS Psycho-Social Medicine; 2008:Doc10.
   Google Scholar
• Bolt T, Mahlich J, Nakamura Y, et al. Hematologists’ preferences for first-line therapy characteristics for multiple myeloma in japan: attribute rating and discrete choice experiment. Clin Ther. 2018;40(2):296–308.e2. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.12.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong K, Delforge M, Driessen C, et al. Multiple myeloma: patient outcomes in real-world practice. Br J Haematol. 2016;175(2):252–264. doi:10.1111/bjh.14213
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muhlbacher AC, Nübling M. Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;3(89):175–180.
   Google Scholar
• Mühlbacher AC, Nübling M. Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma. Eur J Health Economics. 2011;12(3):193–203. doi:10.1007/s10198-010-0218-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChoiceMetrics. Ngene, in User Manual & Reference Guide. Australia: ChoiceMetrics; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Boeri M, Saure D, Schacht A, et al. Modeling Heterogeneity in Patients’ Preferences for Psoriasis Treatments in a Multicountry Study: A Comparison Between Random-Parameters Logit and Latent Class Approaches. PharmacoEconomics. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied Choice Analysis. Second ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Greene WH. Nlogit. Econometric Software, Inc; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou M, Thayer WM, Bridges JFP. Using latent class analysis to model preference heterogeneity in health: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(2):175–187. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0575-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauber ABP, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–315. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez JM. A guide to measuring and interpreting attribute importance. Patient. 2019;12(3):287–295. doi:10.1007/s40271-019-00360-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fifer S, Rose J, Hamrosi KK, et al. Valuing injection frequency and other attributes of type 2 diabetes treatments in Australia: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):675. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3484-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Team, R. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Rstudio, Inc. RStudio Team; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Jansen SJ, Kievit J, Nooij MA, et al. Patients’ preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer: is treatment worthwhile? Br J Cancer. 2001;84(12):1577–1585. doi:10.1054/bjoc.2001.1836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamelinck VC, Bastiaannet E, Pieterse AH, et al. Patients’ preferences for surgical and adjuvant systemic treatment in early breast cancer: a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2014;40(8):1005–1018. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.06.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilke T, Mueller S, Bauer S, et al. Treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma: which new PI-based combination treatments do patients prefer? Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:2387–2396. doi:10.2147/PPA.S183187
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postmus D, Richard S, Bere N, et al. Individual trade offs between possible benefits and risks of cancer treatments: results from a stated preference study with patients with multiple myeloma. Oncologist. 2018;23(1):44–51. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne TR, Ramsenthaler C, Schey SA, et al. Improving the assessment of quality of life in the clinical care of myeloma patients: the development and validation of the myeloma patient outcome scale (MyPOS). BMC Cancer. 2015;15(1):280. doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1261-6
   Google Scholar
• Molassiotis A, Wilson B, Blair S, et al. Unmet supportive care needs, psychological well‐being and quality of life in patients living with multiple myeloma and their partners. Psycho‐Oncology. 2011;20(1):88–97. doi:10.1002/pon.1710
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar