• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

离散选择实验估计乳腺癌患者对预防性粒细胞集落刺激因子的偏好和支付意愿。

Discrete choice experiment to estimate breast cancer patients' preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.

机构信息

OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN, USA.

OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN, USA.

出版信息

Value Health. 2014 Jun;17(4):380-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.002. Epub 2014 Mar 27.

DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.002
PMID:24968998
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Rising out-of-pocket costs for cancer patients have increased shared decision making. Clinical guidelines recommend prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for patients receiving chemotherapy with a 20% or greater risk of febrile neutropenia. A discrete choice experiment was conducted to explore breast cancer patients' preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for prophylactic G-CSF to decrease the risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

An online discrete choice experiment questionnaire survey of a national US convenience sample of self-reported breast cancer patients with prior chemotherapy treatment was conducted. Sixteen paired G-CSF treatment scenarios, each with four attributes (risk of disruption to chemotherapy schedule due to low white blood cell counts, risk of developing an infection requiring hospitalization, frequency of administration, and total out-of-pocket cost) were presented with a follow-up "no treatment" option. Participant preferences and WTP out of pocket were estimated by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 296) preferred G-CSF regimens with lower out-of-pocket costs, lower risk of chemotherapy disruption, lower risk of infection, and greater convenience (one G-CSF injection per chemotherapy cycle). Participants' WTP was $1076 out of pocket per cycle to reduce the risk (high to low) of disrupting their chemotherapy schedule, $884 per cycle to reduce the risk (24% [high] to 7% [low]) of infection, and $851 per cycle to decrease the number of G-CSF injections (11 to 1) per cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants highly valued specific features of prophylactic G-CSF treatment including maintaining their chemotherapy schedule, lowering their risk of infection, and reducing the number of injections. Physicians should consider patient preferences to inform the best treatment choices for individual patients.

摘要

目的

癌症患者自付费用的增加增加了共同决策。临床指南建议对接受化疗且发热性中性粒细胞减少症风险为 20%或更高的患者预防性使用粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)。本研究采用离散选择实验探讨乳腺癌患者对预防性 G-CSF 降低化疗引起的发热性中性粒细胞减少症风险的偏好和支付意愿(WTP)。

方法

对曾接受化疗的美国全国性便利样本的自我报告乳腺癌患者进行在线离散选择实验问卷调查。呈现了 16 对 G-CSF 治疗方案,每个方案均有四个属性(因白细胞计数低而中断化疗计划的风险、发生需要住院治疗的感染的风险、给药频率和总自付费用),并附有“无治疗”选择。采用逻辑回归估计参与者的偏好和 WTP 自付费用。

结果

参与者(n=296)更喜欢自付费用较低、化疗中断风险较低、感染风险较低且更方便(每化疗周期一次 G-CSF 注射)的 G-CSF 方案。参与者每周期为降低中断化疗计划的风险(高到低)而支付的 WTP 为 1076 美元,为降低感染风险(24%[高]至 7%[低])而支付的 WTP 为 884 美元,为减少每周期 G-CSF 注射次数(11 次至 1 次)而支付的 WTP 为 851 美元。

结论

参与者高度重视预防性 G-CSF 治疗的特定特征,包括维持化疗计划、降低感染风险和减少注射次数。医生应考虑患者的偏好,为每位患者提供最佳的治疗选择。

相似文献

1
Discrete choice experiment to estimate breast cancer patients' preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.离散选择实验估计乳腺癌患者对预防性粒细胞集落刺激因子的偏好和支付意愿。
Value Health. 2014 Jun;17(4):380-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.002. Epub 2014 Mar 27.
2
Economic implications of using pegfilgrastim rather than conventional G-CSF to prevent neutropenia during small-cell lung cancer chemotherapy.在小细胞肺癌化疗中使用培非格司亭而非常规 G-CSF 预防中性粒细胞减少的经济学意义。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2009 Jun;25(6):1455-60. doi: 10.1185/03007990902918156.
3
A retrospective study of patients' out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.一项关于粒细胞集落刺激因子患者自付费用的回顾性研究。
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2013 Dec;19(4):328-37. doi: 10.1177/1078155212473001. Epub 2013 Jan 24.
4
Frequency of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving epirubicin and docetaxel/paclitaxel with colony-stimulating growth factors: a comparison of filgrastim or lenograstim with pegfilgrastim.接受表柔比星和多西他赛/紫杉醇并使用集落刺激生长因子的乳腺癌患者发热性中性粒细胞减少症的发生率:非格司亭或来格司亭与培非格司亭的比较
Oncology. 2006;70(4):290-3. doi: 10.1159/000094890. Epub 2006 Aug 4.
5
2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours.2010 年版 EORTC 指南更新:粒细胞集落刺激因子在降低淋巴增殖性疾病和实体瘤成人患者化疗所致发热性中性粒细胞减少症发生率中的应用
Eur J Cancer. 2011 Jan;47(1):8-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.013. Epub 2010 Nov 20.
6
Comparative effectiveness of colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia: a retrospective study.粒细胞集落刺激因子治疗发热性中性粒细胞减少症的疗效比较:一项回顾性研究。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2011 Jan;27(1):79-86. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.536527. Epub 2010 Nov 22.
7
Cost effectiveness of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer at risk of febrile neutropenia.乳腺癌发热性中性粒细胞减少症风险患者初级聚乙二醇化非格司亭预防的成本效益。
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Dec 1;31(34):4283-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.48.3644. Epub 2013 Oct 28.
8
Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the United Kingdom.英国乳腺癌患者发热性中性粒细胞减少症使用粒细胞集落刺激因子预防的成本效益分析。
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):465-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.037. Epub 2011 Apr 22.
9
Economic analysis of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.接受化疗的成年癌症患者预防性使用聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子的经济学分析。
Value Health. 2008 Mar-Apr;11(2):172-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00242.x.
10
Annual patient and caregiver burden of oncology clinic visits for granulocyte-colony stimulating factor therapy in the US.美国肿瘤门诊粒细胞集落刺激因子治疗的年度患者及照料者负担
J Med Econ. 2016;19(5):537-47. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2016.1140052. Epub 2016 Jan 22.

引用本文的文献

1
How Can Oncology Nurses and Advanced Practice Providers Reduce the Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia in the US?美国肿瘤护士和高级执业提供者如何减轻化疗引起的发热性中性粒细胞减少症的负担?
J Adv Pract Oncol. 2024 May 22:1-15. doi: 10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.8.5.
2
Analyzing HPV Vaccination Service Preferences among Female University Students in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.分析中国女大学生对HPV疫苗接种服务的偏好:一项离散选择实验
Vaccines (Basel). 2024 Aug 9;12(8):905. doi: 10.3390/vaccines12080905.
3
Willingness to pay for an mRNA-based anti-cancer treatment: results from a contingent valuation study in Israel.
对基于mRNA的抗癌治疗的支付意愿:以色列一项条件价值评估研究的结果
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2024 Feb 19;13(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s13584-024-00594-z.
4
Women's preference to apply shared decision-making in breast cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment.女性在乳腺癌筛查中倾向于采用共同决策:一项离散选择实验。
BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 8;12(11):e064488. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064488.
5
Stated preferences for family doctor contract services: a survey of the rural elderly in Anhui Province, China.家庭医生签约服务的意愿调查:来自中国安徽省农村老年人的调查。
BMJ Open. 2022 Mar 3;12(3):e053277. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053277.
6
Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.癌症治疗和结局的支付意愿:系统综述。
Eur J Health Econ. 2022 Aug;23(6):1037-1057. doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01407-9. Epub 2021 Dec 2.
7
A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments.肿瘤治疗中离散选择实验的系统评价。
Patient. 2021 Nov;14(6):775-790. doi: 10.1007/s40271-021-00520-4. Epub 2021 May 5.
8
Patient Preferences for Outcomes Following DCIS Management Strategies: A Discrete Choice Experiment.患者对 DCIS 管理策略相关结局的偏好:一项离散选择实验。
JCO Oncol Pract. 2021 Nov;17(11):e1639-e1648. doi: 10.1200/OP.20.00614. Epub 2021 Mar 12.
9
Patient preferences for first-line treatment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma: a US survey and discrete choice experiment.患者对经典型霍奇金淋巴瘤一线治疗的偏好:一项美国调查和离散选择实验。
Leuk Lymphoma. 2020 Nov;61(11):2630-2637. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2020.1783443. Epub 2020 Jul 20.
10
Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.健康经济学中的离散选择实验:过去、现在和未来。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Feb;37(2):201-226. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2.