Agreement Between Prostate Cancer Patients and Their Clinicians About Utilities and Attribute Importance

Overview

Journal Health Expect

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Public Health

Date 2004 May 1

PMID 15117386

Citations 10

Authors

Arthur S Elstein

Gretchen B Chapman

Joan S Chmiel

Sara J Knight

Cheeling Chan

Robert B Nadler

Timothy M Kuzel

Amy K Siston

Charles L Bennett

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the agreement between prostate cancer patients' utilities for selected health states and their rankings of the importance of six attributes of the health states and the clinicians' judgements of what would be in the patients' best interests.

Method: Patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer individually completed a time trade-off utility assessment shortly after being diagnosed. The health states evaluated were constructed from a multi-attribute utility model that incorporated six aspects of living with the disease and outcomes of treatment. Each patient assessed his current health state and three hypothetical states that might occur in the future, and provided rankings of the importance of the six attributes. The clinicians caring for each patient independently provided their views of what utilities and importance rankings would be in the patient's best interest.

Results: The across-participant correlations between patients' and clinicians' utilities were very low and not statistically significant. Across-participant correlations between patient and clinician importance rankings for the six attributes were also low. Across-health state and across-attribute correlations between utilities or importance rankings were highly variable across patient-clinician pairs.

Conclusion: In the clinical settings studied, there is not a strong relationship between valuations of current and possible future health states by patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and their clinicians. Implications of these results for substituted judgement, when clinicians advise their patients or recommend a treatment strategy, are discussed.

Citing Articles

Unmet needs in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer from the Japanese patient perspective: a discrete choice experiment.

Uemura H, Matsushima H, Yokomizo A, Kobayashi K, Arai G, Satoh T BMJ Open. 2021; 11(8):e052471.

PMID: 34400460 PMC: 8370498. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052471.

Improving Shared Decision Making in Latino Men With Prostate Cancer: A Thematic Analysis.

Michel J, Ballon J, Connor S, Johnson D, Bergman J, Saigal C MDM Policy Pract. 2021; 6(1):23814683211014180.

PMID: 34104782 PMC: 8165846. DOI: 10.1177/23814683211014180.

Micronutrient deficiencies and health-related quality of life: the case of children with vitamin D deficiency.

Aguiar M, Andronis L, Pallan M, Hogler W, Frew E Public Health Nutr. 2019; 23(7):1165-1172.

PMID: 30744725 PMC: 10200666. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980018003841.

Mind the gap: Physicians' assessment of patients' importance weights in localized prostate cancer.

Tentori K, Pighin S, Divan C, Crupi V PLoS One. 2018; 13(7):e0200780.

PMID: 30048485 PMC: 6062014. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200780.

Prostate Cancer Patient Characteristics Associated With a Strong Preference to Preserve Sexual Function and Receipt of Active Surveillance.

Broughman J, Basak R, Nielsen M, Reeve B, Usinger D, Spearman K J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017; 110(4):420-425.

PMID: 29045679 PMC: 6367921. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djx218.

References

Cowen M, Miles B, Cahill D, Giesler R, Beck J, Kattan M . The danger of applying group-level utilities in decision analyses of the treatment of localized prostate cancer in individual patients. Med Decis Making. 1999; 18(4):376-80. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800404. View

Beck J, Kattan M, Miles B . A critique of the decision analysis for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1994; 152(5 Pt 2):1894-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)32409-6. View

Davis J, Kuban D, LYNCH D, Schellhammer P . Quality of life after treatment for localized prostate cancer: differences based on treatment modality. J Urol. 2001; 166(3):947-52. View

Krahn M, Mahoney J, Eckman M, Trachtenberg J, Pauker S, Detsky A . Screening for prostate cancer. A decision analytic view. JAMA. 1994; 272(10):773-80. View

Clarke A, Goldstein M, Michelson D, Garber A, Lenert L . The effect of assessment method and respondent population on utilities elicited for Gaucher disease. Qual Life Res. 1997; 6(2):169-84. DOI: 10.1023/a:1026446302100. View

Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, Salo J, Folmerz P, Haggman M . A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(11):781-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa012794. View

Cantor S, Spann S, Volk R, Cardenas M, Warren M . Prostate cancer screening: a decision analysis. J Fam Pract. 1995; 41(1):33-41. View

Litwin M, Hays R, Fink A, Ganz P, Leake B, Leach G . Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995; 273(2):129-35. DOI: 10.1001/jama.273.2.129. View

Schneiderman L, Kaplan R, Rosenberg E, Teetzel H . Do physicians' own preferences for life-sustaining treatment influence their perceptions of patients' preferences? A second look. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 1997; 6(2):131-7. DOI: 10.1017/s0963180100007751. View

10.

Froberg D, Kane R . Methodology for measuring health-state preferences--II: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989; 42(5):459-71. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90136-4. View

11.

Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J, Dickman P, Johansson J, Norlen B . Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(11):790-6. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa021483. View

12.

Torrance G, Thomas W, Sackett D . A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972; 7(2):118-33. PMC: 1067402. View

13.

Ditto P, Danks J, Smucker W, Bookwala J, Coppola K, Dresser R . Advance directives as acts of communication: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161(3):421-30. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.161.3.421. View

14.

Au E, Loprinzi C, Dhodapkar M, Nelson T, Novotny P, Hammack J . Regular use of a verbal pain scale improves the understanding of oncology inpatient pain intensity. J Clin Oncol. 1994; 12(12):2751-5. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1994.12.12.2751. View

15.

Herr H, Kornblith A, Ofman U . A comparison of the quality of life of patients with metastatic prostate cancer who received or did not receive hormonal therapy. Cancer. 1993; 71(3 Suppl):1143-50. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19930201)71:3+<1143::aid-cncr2820711437>3.0.co;2-i. View

16.

Sulmasy D, Terry P, Weisman C, Miller D, Stallings R, Vettese M . The accuracy of substituted judgments in patients with terminal diagnoses. Ann Intern Med. 1998; 128(8):621-9. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-128-8-199804150-00002. View

17.

Chapman G, Elstein A . Utility assessment: methods and research. Cancer Treat Res. 1998; 97:13-23. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-585-30498-4_2. View

18.

Chapman G, Elstein A, Kuzel T, Sharifi R, Nadler R, Andrews A . Prostate cancer patients' utilities for health states: how it looks depends on where you stand. Med Decis Making. 1998; 18(3):278-86. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800304. View

19.

Knight S, Chmiel J, Sharp L, Kuzel T, Nadler R, Fine R . Spouse ratings of quality of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer of lower socioeconomic status: an assessment of feasibility, reliability, and validity. Urology. 2001; 57(2):275-80. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00934-1. View

20.

Suarez-Almazor M, Conner-Spady B, Kendall C, Russell A, Skeith K . Lack of congruence in the ratings of patients' health status by patients and their physicians. Med Decis Making. 2001; 21(2):113-21. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100204. View