Prostate cancer survivors' preferences on the delivery of diet and lifestyle advice: a pilot best-worst discrete choice experiment.
Conjoint analysis
Dietary
Discrete choice experiments
Lifestyle advice
Prostate cancer
Survivorship
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
14
08
2018
accepted:
23
12
2019
entrez:
11
1
2020
pubmed:
11
1
2020
medline:
11
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Lifestyle factors, including diet and physical activity, are associated with prostate cancer progression and mortality. However, it is unclear how men would like lifestyle information to be delivered following primary treatment. This study aimed to identify men's preferences for receiving lifestyle information. We conducted a cross-sectional pilot best-worst discrete choice experiment which was nested within a feasibility randomised controlled trial. Our aim was to explore men's preferences of receiving diet and physical activity advice following surgery for localised prostate cancer. Thirty-eight men with a mean age of 65 years completed best-worst scenarios based on four attributes: (1) how information is provided; (2) where information is provided; (3) who provides information; and (4) the indirect cost of receiving information. Data was analysed using conditional logistic regression. Men's willingness to pay (WTP) for aspects of the service was calculated using an out-of-pocket cost attribute. The combined best-worst analysis suggested that men preferred information through one-to-one discussion Men mostly valued personalised methods of receiving diet and physical activity information over impersonal methods. The out-of-pocket value of receiving lifestyle information was important to some men. These findings could help inform future interventions using tailored dietary and physical activity advice given to men by clinicians following treatment for prostate cancer, such as mode of delivery, context, and person delivering the intervention. Future studies should consider using discrete choice experiments to examine information delivery to cancer survivor populations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Lifestyle factors, including diet and physical activity, are associated with prostate cancer progression and mortality. However, it is unclear how men would like lifestyle information to be delivered following primary treatment. This study aimed to identify men's preferences for receiving lifestyle information.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a cross-sectional pilot best-worst discrete choice experiment which was nested within a feasibility randomised controlled trial. Our aim was to explore men's preferences of receiving diet and physical activity advice following surgery for localised prostate cancer. Thirty-eight men with a mean age of 65 years completed best-worst scenarios based on four attributes: (1) how information is provided; (2) where information is provided; (3) who provides information; and (4) the indirect cost of receiving information. Data was analysed using conditional logistic regression. Men's willingness to pay (WTP) for aspects of the service was calculated using an out-of-pocket cost attribute.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The combined best-worst analysis suggested that men preferred information through one-to-one discussion
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Men mostly valued personalised methods of receiving diet and physical activity information over impersonal methods. The out-of-pocket value of receiving lifestyle information was important to some men. These findings could help inform future interventions using tailored dietary and physical activity advice given to men by clinicians following treatment for prostate cancer, such as mode of delivery, context, and person delivering the intervention. Future studies should consider using discrete choice experiments to examine information delivery to cancer survivor populations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31921435
doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0549-8
pii: 549
pmc: PMC6945704
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2Informations de copyright
© The Author(s). 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Int J Clin Pharm. 2016 Jun;38(3):620-30
pubmed: 26610687
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Health Econ. 2012 Feb;21(2):145-72
pubmed: 22223558
J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 1;26(13):2198-204
pubmed: 18445845
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Feb 20;29(6):726-32
pubmed: 21205749
Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Dec;96(6):1409-18
pubmed: 23134882
BMC Cancer. 2014 Nov 05;14:812
pubmed: 25374269
Int J Cancer. 2017 Sep 1;141(5):933-944
pubmed: 28543830
BMC Fam Pract. 2014 May 03;15:81
pubmed: 24886169
Nutr Cancer. 2007;57(2):130-7
pubmed: 17571945
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 03;9(11):e111805
pubmed: 25365169
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Jul;35(7):697-716
pubmed: 28374325
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Sep;32(9):883-902
pubmed: 25005924
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Jul;42(7):1409-26
pubmed: 20559064
J Cancer Surviv. 2017 Dec;11(6):782-790
pubmed: 28429186
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-77
pubmed: 18620460
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Jan;76(1):74-82
pubmed: 23159304
Patient. 2015 Oct;8(5):373-84
pubmed: 25726010
Cancer Causes Control. 2017 Apr;28(4):319-329
pubmed: 28220328
Cancer. 2000 Feb 1;88(3):674-84
pubmed: 10649263
Trials. 2016 Mar 07;17(1):123
pubmed: 26948468