Section on Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.
University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jan;148(1):42-48. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.10.018. Epub 2017 Nov 1.
Improved outcomes realized by patients treated at high-volume institutions have led to a call for centralization of ovarian cancer care. However, it is unknown whether centralization respects patients' preferences regarding treatment location. This study's objective was to determine how patients balance survival benefit against the burdens of travel to a distant treatment center.
Patients presenting for evaluation of adnexal masses completed two discrete choice experiments (DCEs) assessing 1) the 5-year survival benefit required to justify 50miles of additional travel, and 2) the additional distance patients would travel for a 6% 5-year survival benefit. Demographic data were collected with measures of health numeracy, social support, and comfort with travel. t-Tests were performed to test for significant differences between group means.
81% (50/62) of participants required a 5-year survival benefit of ≤6% to justify 50miles of additional travel (DCE#1). These participants were less likely to be employed (56% vs 83%, p=0.05) and more likely to rate their health as good to excellent (86% vs 50%, p=0.04) than those requiring >6% benefit to travel 50miles. 80% (44/55) of participants would travel ≥50miles for a set 5-year survival benefit of 6% (DCE#2). No association was identified in DCE#2 between willingness to travel and collected sociodemographic covariates.
1 in 5 patients with ovarian cancer may prefer not to travel to a referral center, even when aware of the survival benefits of doing so. Policymakers should consider patients' travel preferences in designing referral structures for care.
在高容量机构接受治疗的患者的结果得到改善,这导致人们呼吁集中卵巢癌的治疗。然而,尚不清楚集中治疗是否尊重患者对治疗地点的偏好。本研究的目的是确定患者如何在生存获益与前往遥远治疗中心的旅行负担之间进行权衡。
就诊评估附件肿块的患者完成了两项离散选择实验(DCE),评估了 1)证明额外 50 英里旅行合理的 5 年生存获益,以及 2)患者为获得 6%的 5 年生存获益而愿意多走的距离。收集了人口统计学数据,包括健康算数能力、社会支持和旅行舒适度的测量。进行 t 检验以检验组间均值的差异是否具有统计学意义。
62 名参与者中有 81%(50/62)需要≤6%的 5 年生存获益来证明额外 50 英里的旅行是合理的(DCE#1)。与需要旅行 50 英里获益>6%的患者相比,这些患者更有可能不工作(56%比 83%,p=0.05),更有可能将自己的健康状况评为良好至优秀(86%比 50%,p=0.04)。80%(44/55)的参与者愿意旅行≥50 英里以获得固定的 5 年生存获益 6%(DCE#2)。在 DCE#2 中,没有发现愿意旅行与收集的社会人口学协变量之间存在关联。
1/5 的卵巢癌患者可能不愿意前往转诊中心,即使他们知道这样做的生存获益。政策制定者在设计转诊服务结构时应考虑患者的旅行偏好。