Using nominal group technique to identify key attributes of oncology treatments for a discrete choice experiment

Somers, C., Chimonas, S., McIntosh, E. , Kaltenboeck, A., Briggs, A. and Bach, P. (2019) Using nominal group technique to identify key attributes of oncology treatments for a discrete choice experiment. MDM Policy and Practice, (doi:10.1177/2381468319837925) (Early Online Publication)

Somers, C., Chimonas, S., McIntosh, E. , Kaltenboeck, A., Briggs, A. and Bach, P. (2019) Using nominal group technique to identify key attributes of oncology treatments for a discrete choice experiment. MDM Policy and Practice, (doi:10.1177/2381468319837925) (Early Online Publication)

[img]
Preview
Text
182486.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

135kB

Abstract

Background. Responding to rising oncology therapy costs, multiple value frameworks are emerging. However, input from economists in their design and conceptualization has been limited, and no existing framework has been developed using preference weightings as legitimate indicators of value. This article outlines use of the nominal group technique to identify valued treatment attributes (such as treatment inconvenience) and contextual considerations (such as current life expectancy) to inform the design of a discrete choice experiment to develop a preference weighted value framework for future decision makers. Methods. Three focus groups were conducted in 2017 with cancer patients, oncology physicians, and nurses. Using the nominal group technique, participants identified and prioritized cancer therapy treatment and delivery attributes as well as contextual issues considered when choosing treatment options. Results. Focus groups with patients (n = 8), physicians (n = 6), and nurses (n = 10) identified 30 treatment attributes and contextual considerations. Therapy health gains was the first priority across all groups. Treatment burden/inconvenience to patients and their families and quality of evidence were prioritized treatment attributes alongside preferences for resource use and cost (to patients and society) attributes. The groups also demonstrated that contextual considerations when choosing treatment varied across the stakeholders. Patients prioritized existence of alternative treatments and oncologist/center reputation while nurses focused on administration harms, communication, and treatment innovation. The physicians did not prioritize any contextual issues in their top rankings. Conclusions. The study demonstrates that beyond health gains, there are treatment attributes and contextual considerations that are highly prioritized across stakeholder groups. These represent important candidates for inclusion in a discrete choice experiment seeking to provide weighted preferences for a value framework for oncology treatment that goes beyond health outcomes.

Item Type:Articles
Additional Information:Funded by Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
Status:Early Online Publication
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Somers, Dr Camilla and McIntosh, Professor Emma and Briggs, Professor Andrew
Authors: Somers, C., Chimonas, S., McIntosh, E., Kaltenboeck, A., Briggs, A., and Bach, P.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Health and Wellbeing > Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment
Journal Name:MDM Policy and Practice
Publisher:SAGE
ISSN:2381-4683
ISSN (Online):2381-4683
Published Online:20 March 2019
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2019 The Authors
First Published:First published in MDM Policy and Practice 2019
Publisher Policy:Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record