Identifying and Quantifying Adolescent and Young Adult Patient Preferences in Cancer Care: Development of a Conjoint Analysis-Based Decision-Making Tool
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2019
Identifying and Quantifying Adolescent and Young Adult Patient Preferences in Cancer Care: Development of a Conjoint Analysis-Based Decision-Making Tool
Compared with younger children and older adults, adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer receive more intensive end-of-life (EOL) care. We hypothesize that enhanced understanding of AYA preferences, increased engagement of these patients in decision-making, and improved communication of their preferences with family members and the medical team will lead to increased provision of goal-concordant care and decreased intensity of EOL care. In this study, we describe the development of a novel tool that quantifies the relative importance of numerous factors considered by AYA patients with cancer, their parents, and health care providers when choosing between treatment options.
HowladerN, NooneAM, KrapchoM, GarshellJ, MillerD, AlrekruseSF, KosaryCL, YuM, RuhlJ, TatlovichZ, MariottoA, LewisDR, ChenHS, FeuerEJ, CroninKA (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2011. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2011/, based on November 2013 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2014.
3.
SnamanJM, KayeEC, LuJJ, et al.Palliative care involvement is associated with less intensive end-of-life care in adolescent and young adult oncology patients. J Palliat Med. 2017; 20(5):509–16.
4.
MackJW, ChenK, BoscoeFP, et al.High intensity of end-of-life care among adolescent and young adult cancer patients in the New York State Medicaid Program. Med Care. 2015; 53(12):1018–26.
5.
MackJW, ChenLH, CannavaleK, et al.End-of-life care intensity among adolescent and young adult patients with cancer in Kaiser Permanente Southern California. JAMA Oncol. 2015; 1(5):592–600.
6.
HindsPS, QuargnentiA, OlsonMS, et al.The 1992 APON Delphi study to establish research priorities for pediatric oncology nursing. Association of Pediatric Oncology Nurses. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 1994; 11(1):20–7; discussion 8–30.
7.
HildenJM, EmanuelEJ, FaircloughDL, et al.Attitudes and practices among pediatric oncologists regarding end-of-life care: results of the 1998 American Society of Clinical Oncology survey. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19(1):205–12.
8.
HindsPS, KellyKP. Studying clinical decision making by patients, parents, and health care providers in pediatric oncology. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 1998; 15(3 Suppl 1):1–2.
9.
TomlinsonD, BartelsU, GammonJ, et al.Chemotherapy versus supportive care alone in pediatric palliative care for cancer: comparing the preferences of parents and health care professionals. CMAJ. 2011; 183(17):E1252–8.
10.
MillerVA, BakerJN, LeekAC, et al.Adolescent perspectives on phase I cancer research. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013; 60(5):873–8.
TomlinsonD, BartelsU, HendershotE, et al.Factors affecting treatment choices in paediatric palliative care: comparing parents and health professionals. Eur J Cancer. 2011; 47(14):2182–7.
13.
HindsPS, QuargnentiA, FaircloughD, et al.Hopefulness and its characteristics in adolescents with cancer. Western J Nurs Res. 1999; 21(5):600–16; discussion 17–20.
14.
WeirRF, PetersC. Affirming the decisions adolescents make about life and death. Hastings Cent Rep. 1997; 27(6):29–40.
15.
WeaverMS, BakerJN, GattusoJS, et al.Adolescents' preferences for treatment decisional involvement during their cancer. Cancer. 2015; 121(24):4416–24.
16.
LancasterK. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966; 74:132–57.
17.
OzkaynakMF, SondelPM, KrailoMD, et al.Phase I study of chimeric human/murine anti-ganglioside G(D2) monoclonal antibody (ch14.18) with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in children with neuroblastoma immediately after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: a Children's Cancer Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18(24):4077–85.
18.
MaudeSL, FreyN, ShawPA, et al.Chimeric antigen receptor T cells for sustained remissions in leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(16):1507–17.
19.
PieterseAH, BerkersF, Baas-ThijssenMC, et al.Adaptive Conjoint Analysis as individual preference assessment tool: feasibility through the internet and reliability of preferences. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 78(2):224–33.
20.
FraenkelL. Conjoint analysis at the individual patient level: issues to consider as we move from a research to a clinical tool. Patient. 2008; 1(4):251–3.
21.
FraenkelL, ChodkowskiD, LimJ, Garcia-TsaoG. Patients' preferences for treatment of hepatitis C. Med Decis Making. 2010; 30(1):45–57.
22.
FraenkelL, RabidouN, WittinkD, FriedT. Improving informed decision-making for patients with knee pain. J Rheumatol. 2007; 34(9):1894–8.
