Preferences for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

被引:11
作者
Xia, Qing [1 ,2 ]
Kularatna, Mineth [1 ,2 ]
Virdun, Claudia [3 ]
Button, Elise [3 ]
Close, Eliana [4 ]
Carter, Hannah E. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Queensland Univ Technol, Fac Hlth, Australian Ctr Hlth Serv Innovat, Sch Publ Hlth & Social Work, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Queensland Univ Technol, Fac Hlth, Ctr Healthcare Transformat, Sch Publ Hlth & Social Work, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[3] Queensland Univ Technol, Canc & Palliat Care Outcomes Ctr, Ctr Healthcare Transformat, Sch Nursing,Fac Hlth, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[4] Queensland Univ Technol, Fac Business & Law, Australian Ctr Hlth Law Res, Sch Law, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
关键词
discrete choice experiments; palliative care; relative attribute importance; systematic review; trade-offs; CONJOINT-ANALYSIS; ADVANCED CANCER; OLDER-PEOPLE; ILL PATIENTS; ILLNESS; DEATH; HOME; ATTRIBUTES; SUPPORT; PATIENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jval.2023.07.005
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objectives: Understanding what matters most to patients and their caregivers is fundamental to delivering high-quality care. This systematic review aimed to characterize and appraise the evidence from discrete choice experiments eliciting preferences for palliative care. Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken for publications up until August 2022. Data were synthesized narratively. Thematic analysis was applied to categorize attributes into groups. Attribute development, frequency, and relative importance were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare outcomes between patient and proxy Results: Seventeen studies spanning 11 countries were included; 59% of studies solely considered preferences for patients with cancer. A range of respondent groups were represented including patients (76%) and proxies (caregivers [35%], health providers [12%], and the public [18%]). A total of 117 individual attributes were extracted and thematically grouped into 8 broad categories and 21 subcategories. Clinical outcomes including quality of life, length of life, and pain control were the most frequently reported attributes, whereas attributes relating to psychosocial components were largely absent. Both patients and proxy respondents prioritized pain control over additional survival time. Nevertheless, there were differences between respondent cohorts in the emphasis on other attributes such as access to care, timely information, and low risk of adverse effects (prioritized by patients), as opposed to cost, quality, and delivery of care (prioritized by proxies). Conclusions: Our review underscores the vital role of pain control in palliative care; in addition, it shed light on the complexity and relative strength of preferences for various aspects of care from multiple perspectives, which is useful in developing personalized, patient-centered models of care for individuals nearing the end of life.
引用
收藏
页码:1795 / 1809
页数:15
相关论文
共 74 条
[1]   Systematic Review of Studies Using Conjoint Analysis Techniques to Investigate Patients' Preferences Regarding Osteoarthritis Treatment [J].
Al-Omari, Basem ;
McMeekin, Peter ;
Bate, Angela .
PATIENT PREFERENCE AND ADHERENCE, 2021, 15 :197-211
[2]   Emotional Distress and Compassionate Responses in Palliative Care Decision-Making Consultations [J].
Alexander, Stewart C. ;
Ladwig, Susan ;
Norton, Sally A. ;
Gramling, David ;
Davis, J. Kelly ;
Metzger, Maureen ;
DeLuca, Jane ;
Gramling, Robert .
JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2014, 17 (05) :579-584
[3]   Information giving and receiving in hematological malignancy consultations [J].
Alexander, Stewart C. ;
Sullivan, Amy M. ;
Back, Anthony L. ;
Tulsky, James A. ;
Goldman, Roberta E. ;
Block, Susan D. ;
Stewart, Susan K. ;
Wilson-Genderson, Maureen ;
Lee, Stephanie J. .
PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2012, 21 (03) :297-306
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2015, National consensus statement: essential elements for safe and high‐quality end‐of‐life care
[5]   Communication About Serious Illness Care Goals A Review and Synthesis of Best Practices [J].
Bernacki, Rachelle E. ;
Block, Susan D. .
JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2014, 174 (12) :1994-2003
[6]   Patients' Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments [J].
Bien, Daniela R. ;
Danner, Marion ;
Vennedey, Vera ;
Civello, Daniele ;
Evers, Silvia M. ;
Hiligsmann, Mickael .
PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2017, 10 (05) :553-565
[7]   What Do Parents Value Regarding Pediatric Palliative and Hospice Care in the Home Setting? [J].
Boyden, Jackelyn Y. ;
Ersek, Mary ;
Deatrick, Janet A. ;
Widger, Kimberley ;
LaRagione, Gwenn ;
Lord, Blyth ;
Feudtner, Chris .
JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2021, 61 (01) :12-23
[8]   Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health-a Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force [J].
Bridges, John F. P. ;
Hauber, A. Brett ;
Marshall, Deborah ;
Lloyd, Andrew ;
Prosser, Lisa A. ;
Regier, Dean A. ;
Johnson, F. Reed ;
Mauskopf, Josephine .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (04) :403-413
[9]   Undetected Cognitive Impairment and Decision-Making Capacity in Patients Receiving Hospice Care [J].
Burton, Cynthia Z. ;
Twamley, Elizabeth W. ;
Lee, Lana C. ;
Palmer, Barton W. ;
Jeste, Dilip V. ;
Dunn, Laura B. ;
Irwin, Scott A. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY, 2012, 20 (04) :306-316
[10]   A palliative care model and conceptual approach suited to clinical malignant haematology [J].
Button, Elise ;
Bolton, Michael ;
Chan, Raymond J. ;
Chambers, Shirley ;
Butler, Jason ;
Yates, Patsy .
PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2019, 33 (05) :483-485