Attributes for a discrete-choice experiment on preferences of patients for oncology pharmacy consultations.
Delphi method
Discrete-choice experiment
Oncology pharmacy consultation
Patient healthcare
Preferences
Journal
Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer
ISSN: 1433-7339
Titre abrégé: Support Care Cancer
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9302957
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Apr 2024
30 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
06
12
2023
accepted:
21
04
2024
medline:
30
4
2024
pubmed:
30
4
2024
entrez:
30
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To ensure the safe use of oral anticancer drugs, oncology pharmacy consultations (OPCs) have been established in France. They are conditioned by the needs, expectations, and involvement of the patients in their care. Thus, it is essential to elicit their preferences. The discrete-choice experiment (DCE) is a method recommended by the ISPOR for such a task. The "selection and validation of attributes and their values" step is fundamental in this process. In this context, the aim of this study was to present our research approach to identify and validate the attributes that characterize an OPC and their values. Due to the lack of relevant published data in the literature, the focus-group method was used in accordance with good research practices for the application of conjoint-analysis of the ISPOR. The two-round Delphi method was used to validate the attributes and their values identified by the focus-group method. The focus-group method enabled identification of nine attributes. Thirty-seven healthcare professionals at a national level, including 30 pharmacists and seven physicians, were selected to take part in the Delphi procedure. Seven attributes (frequency, planification, operation mode, duration, content, written support, and report) and their values were thus validated. Based on these results, the next step will be to elicit patient preferences for OPCs and to then shed light on the issues of pharmaceutical support for patients by comparing their preferences with those of informal caregivers and, in particular, those of the healthcare professionals involved in their care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38687392
doi: 10.1007/s00520-024-08517-z
pii: 10.1007/s00520-024-08517-z
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
318Investigateurs
Virginie Andre
(V)
Jeanne Briet
(J)
Michael Bringuier
(M)
Régine Chevrier
(R)
Florian Correard
(F)
Amélie Cransac
(A)
Alice Danckaert
(A)
Françoise Decrozals
(F)
Elise Deluche
(E)
Catherine Devys
(C)
Nelly Etienne-Selloum
(N)
Raphaëlle Fanciullino
(R)
Julie Fulcrand
(J)
Vincent Goldschmidt
(V)
Jérémy Jost
(J)
Murielle Laudet
(M)
Fanny Leenhardt
(F)
Barbara Lortal
(B)
Isabelle Madelaine
(I)
Pierre Nizet
(P)
Selim Omrani
(S)
Emeline Orillard
(E)
Germain Perrin
(G)
Sophie Potin
(S)
Florent Puisset
(F)
Liliane Remenieras
(L)
Fanny Rethouze
(F)
Catherine Rioufol
(C)
Audrey Saint-Ghislain
(A)
Antonin Schmitt
(A)
Nicolas Simon
(N)
Florian Slimano
(F)
Geoffrey Strobbe
(G)
Aurélie Terrier-Lenglet
(A)
Audrey Thomas
(A)
Julie Vardanega
(J)
Erika Viel-Truong
(E)
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
The French National Cancer Institute - www.en.ecancer.fr . https://en.e-cancer.fr/ . Accessed 25 Apr 2024
Lasala R, Santoleri F (2022) Association between adherence to oral therapies in cancer patients and clinical outcome: a systematic review of the literature. Br J Clin Pharmacol 88(5):1999–2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15147
doi: 10.1111/bcp.15147
pubmed: 34784654
Petit-Jean E, Correard F, Maillan G et al (2019) Pharmaceutical consultations in oncology: French Society for Oncology Pharmacy (Société Francaise de Pharmacie Oncologique – SFPO) guidelines. Eur J Oncol Pharm 2(2):e11. https://doi.org/10.1097/OP9.0000000000000011
doi: 10.1097/OP9.0000000000000011
Moumjid N, Nguyen F, Bremond A et al (2008) Patients’ preferences and decision-making: state of the art and applications in cancer. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 56(Suppl 3):S231-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2008.04.008
doi: 10.1016/j.respe.2008.04.008
pubmed: 18538959
Bastiaens H, Van Royen P, Pavlic DR, Raposo V, Baker R (2007) Older people’s preferences for involvement in their own care: a qualitative study in primary health care in 11 European countries. Patient Educ Couns 68(1):33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.025
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.025
pubmed: 17544239
Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A (1999) What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ 319(7212):780–782. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.780
doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.780
pubmed: 10488014
pmcid: 1116606
Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D et al (2011) Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health 14(4):403–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
pubmed: 21669364
Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D et al (2013) Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 16(1):3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
pubmed: 23337210
Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM et al (2016) Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 19(4):300–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
pubmed: 27325321
Berchi C, Launoy G (2007) Principle, strengths and weaknesses of discrete choice modelling for eliciting public preferences for pare. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 55(2):133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2006.11.002
doi: 10.1016/j.respe.2006.11.002
pubmed: 17408895
Riboulet M, Clairet AL, Bennani M, et al (2024) Patient preferences for pharmacy services: a systematic review of studies based on discrete-choice experiments. Patient17(1):13–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00652-9
Kawaguchi T, Azuma K, Yamaguchi T et al (2014) Preferences for pharmacist counselling in patients with breast cancer: a discrete choice experiment. Biol Pharm Bull 37(11):1795–1802. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.b14-00452
doi: 10.1248/bpb.b14-00452
pubmed: 25212541
Wong LP (2008) Focus group discussion: a tool for health and medical research. Singapore Med J 49(3):256–260 (quiz 261)
pubmed: 18363011
Linstone HA, Turoff M (1975) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. J Mark Res. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150755
Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM et al (2014) Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol 67(4):401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002
pubmed: 24581294
Jones J, Hunter D (1995) Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311(7001):376–380. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376
doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376
pubmed: 7640549
pmcid: 2550437
Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL et al (1998) Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess 2(3):1–88
doi: 10.3310/hta2030
Fitch K, Bernstein S, Aguilar M, et al (2001) The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. RAND corporation
Bridges JFP, de Bekker-Grob EW, Hauber B et al (2023) A roadmap for increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making in health: a good practices report of an ISPOR task force. Value Health 26(2):153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.12.004
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.12.004
pubmed: 36754539