Patients with advanced cancer often have to make difficult decisions, such as how much to spend on moderately life-extending treatments. This and other end-of-life decisions are also influenced by their informal caregivers. Understanding the relative value that patients and their caregivers place on various aspects of end-of-life care can help clinicians tailor treatments to best meet the preferences of their patients.
Aim:
To quantify willingness to pay of patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers to extend the patients’ life by 1 year and to compare this result to their willingness to pay for other end-of-life improvements.
Design:
Cross-sectional survey using a discrete choice experiment.
Participants:
A total of 211 patients with stage IV cancer and their informal caregivers.
Results:
The willingness to pay of patients to extend their life by 1 year (S$18,570; 95% confidence interval: S$6687–S$30,542) was not statistically different from their willingness to pay to avoid severe pain (S$22,199; S$11,648–S$32,450), to die at home (S$31,256; S$21,249–S$41,391), not be a burden on family and friends (S$4051; −S$3543 to S$11,568), or to receive a high-quality health-care experience (S$16,191; S$9266–S$23,037). Consistent with our hypothesis, caregivers had a greater willingness to pay than patients to extend life (S$61,368; S$37,030–S$86,210) and for most other end-of-life improvements.
Conclusion:
Results highlight the importance of pain management, supporting home deaths, and addressing other end-of-life concerns, in addition to efforts to extend life. Differences in willingness to pay of patients and caregivers suggest the need for eliciting patient preferences during treatment decision making as opposed to relying on caregiver input.
MathersCDLoncarD. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med2006; 3(11): e442.
2.
WilsonDMCohenJDeliensL. The preferred place of last days: results of a representative population-based public survey. J Palliat Med2013; 16(5): 502–508.
3.
HuntKJShlomoNAddington-HallJ. End-of-life care and achieving preferences for place of death in England: results of a population-based survey using the VOICES-SF questionnaire. Palliat Med2014; 28(5): 412–421.
4.
GomesBHigginsonIJCalanzaniN. Preferences for place of death if faced with advanced cancer: a population survey in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Ann Oncol2012; 23(8): 2006–2015.
5.
Escobar PinzonLCClausMZepfKI. Preference for place of death in Germany. J Palliat Med2011; 14(10): 1097–1103.
6.
FukuiSYoshiuchiKFujitaJ. Japanese people’s preference for place of end-of-life care and death: a population-based nationwide survey. J Pain Symptom Manage2011; 42(6): 882–892.
7.
NeergaardMAJensenABSondergaardJ. Preference for place-of-death among terminally ill cancer patients in Denmark. Scand J Caring Sci2011; 25(4): 627–636.
8.
MaidaVPeckJEnnisM. Preferences for active and aggressive intervention among patients with advanced cancer. BMC Cancer2010; 10: 592.
9.
SilveiraMJKimSYLangaKM.Advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making before death. N Engl J Med2010; 362(13): 1211–1218.
10.
ShahKKTsuchiyaAWailooAJ.Valuing health at the end of life: an empirical study of public preferences. Eur J Health Econ. 2014; 15(4): 389–399.
11.
BischoffKESudoreRMiaoY. Advance care planning and the quality of end-of-life care in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc2013; 61(2): 209–214.
12.
ChanHYPangSM.Quality of life concerns and end-of-life care preferences of aged persons in long-term care facilities. J Clin Nurs2007; 16(11): 2158–2166.
13.
KraaiIHVermeulenKMLuttikML. Preferences of heart failure patients in daily clinical practice: quality of life or longevity?Eur J Heart Fail2013; 15(10): 1113–1121.
14.
ShmueliA.Survivalvs.quality of life: a study of the Israeli public priorities in medical care. Soc Sci Med1999; 49(3): 297–302.
15.
SolomonMJPagerCKKeshavaA. What do patients want? Patient preferences and surrogate decision making in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum2003; 46(10): 1351–1357.
16.
KimMKLeeJLHyunMS. Palliative chemotherapy preferences and factors that influence patient choice in incurable advanced cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol2008; 38(1): 64–70.
17.
BackMFHuakCY.Family centred decision making and non-disclosure of diagnosis in a South East Asian oncology practice. Psychooncology2005; 14(12): 1052–1059.
18.
ElwynTSFettersMDGorenfloW. Cancer disclosure in Japan: historical comparisons, current practices. Soc Sci Med1998; 46(9): 1151–1163.
19.
MiuraYAsaiAMatsushimaM. Families’ and physicians’ predictions of dialysis patients’ preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments in Japan. Am J Kidney Dis2006; 47(1): 122–130.
20.
YunYHYouCHLeeJS. Understanding disparities in aggressive care preferences between patients with terminal illness and their family members. J Pain Symptom Manage2006; 31(6): 513–521.
21.
ChenWTWangSJLuSR. Which level of care is preferred for end-stage dementia? Survey of Taiwanese caregivers. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol2002; 15(1): 16–19.
22.
SuhlJSimonsPReedyT. Myth of substituted judgment: surrogate decision making regarding life support is unreliable. Arch Intern Med1994; 154(1): 90–96.
23.
SulmasyDPTerryPBWeismanCS. The accuracy of substituted judgments in patients with terminal diagnoses. Ann Intern Med1998; 128(8): 621–629.
24.
TangSTLiuTWLaiMS. Concordance of preferences for end-of-life care between terminally ill cancer patients and their family caregivers in Taiwan. J Pain Symptom Manage2005; 30(6): 510–518.
25.
PhilipsonTBeckerGGoldmanD. Terminal care and the value of life near its end. NBER Working Paper Series 15649, January2010. Cambridge, MA: The National Bureau of Economic Research.
26.
MalhotraCChanADoYK. Good end-of-life care: perspectives of middle-aged and older Singaporeans. J Pain Symptom Manage2012; 44(2): 252–263.
27.
SteinhauserKEChristakisNAClippEC. Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers. JAMA2000; 284(19): 2476–2482.
28.
SteinhauserKEClippECMcNeillyM. In search of a good death: observations of patients, families, and providers. Ann Intern Med2000; 132(10): 825–832.
OrmeBK. Getting started with conjoint analysis, 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Research Publishers, LLC, 2010.
31.
RyanM.Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ2004; 328(7436): 360–361.
32.
RyanMFarrarS.Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ2000; 320(7248): 1530–1533.
33.
OsobaDHsuMACopley-MerrimanC. Stated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) domains during treatment. Qual Life Res2006; 15(2): 273–283.
34.
ChuckAAdamowiczWJacobsP. The willingness to pay for reducing pain and pain-related disability. Value Health2009; 12(4): 498–506.
35.
DouglasHRNormandCEHigginsonIJ. A new approach to eliciting patients’ preferences for palliative day care: the choice experiment method. J Pain Symptom Manage2005; 29(5): 435–445.
36.
ChuLWSoJCWongLC. Community end-of-life care among Chinese older adults living in nursing homes. Geriatr Gerontol Int2014; 14(2): 273–284.
37.
WhittyJAStewartSCarringtonMJ. Patient preferences and willingness-to-pay for a home or clinic based program of chronic heart failure management: findings from the Which? Trial. PLoS ONE2013; 8(3): e58347.
38.
NieboerAPKoolmanXStolkEA. Preferences for long-term care services: willingness to pay estimates derived from a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med2010; 70(9): 1317–1325.
39.
HallJKennyPHossainI. Providing informal care in terminal illness: an analysis of preferences for support using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Making2013; 34: 731–745.
40.
MuhlbacherACLinckeHJNublingM. Evaluating patients’ preferences for multiple myeloma therapy, a Discrete-Choice-Experiment. Psychosoc Med2008; 5: Doc10.
41.
MuhlbacherACNublingM. Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma. Eur J Health Econ2011; 12(3): 193–203.
KaoYHGohCR. The practice of nondisclosure of advanced cancer diagnosis in Singapore: a continuing challenge. Singapore Med J2013; 54(5): 255–258.
46.
BridgesJFHauberABMarshallD. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health2011; 14(4): 403–413.
47.
ZwerinaKHuberJKuhfeldWF. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. Durham, NC: Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 1996.
48.
HensherDGreeneW. The Mixed Logit model: the state of practice. Transportation2003; 30(2): 133–176.
49.
KrinskyIRobbAL. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat1986; 68: 715–719.
50.
HoleAR. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ2007; 16(8): 827–840.
51.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics1977; 33(1): 159–174.
52.
Van den Beuken-Van EverdingenMDe RijkeJKesselsA. Prevalence of pain in patients with cancer: a systematic review of the past 40 years. Ann Oncol2007; 18(9): 1437–1449.
53.
TayWKShawRJGohCR. A survey of symptoms in hospice patients in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore1994; 23(2): 191–196.
54.
HongCYChowKYPouloseJ. Place of death and its determinants for patients with cancer in Singapore: an analysis of data from the Singapore Cancer Registry, 2000–2009. J Palliat Med2011; 14(10): 1128–1134.
55.
GaoWHoYKVerneJ. Changing patterns in place of cancer death in England: a population-based study. PLoS Med2013; 10(3): e1001410.
56.
HigginsonIJAstinPImperialSD. Where do cancer patients die? Ten-year trends in the place of death of cancer patients in England. Palliat Med1998; 12(5): 353–363.
57.
GomesBHigginsonIJ. Home or hospital? Choices at the end of life. J R Soc Med2004; 97(9): 413–414.
58.
TangSTHuangEWLiuTW. Propensity for home death among Taiwanese cancer decedents in 2001–2006, determined by services received at end of life. J Pain Symptom Manage2010; 40(4): 566–574.
59.
OstbyeTMalhotraRMalhotraC. Does support from foreign domestic workers decrease the negative impact of informal caregiving? Results from Singapore survey on informal caregiving. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci2013; 68(4): 609–621.
GrosseSD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res2008; 8(2): 165–178.
62.
McCabeCClaxtonKCulyerAJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics2008; 26(9): 733–744.
63.
The World Bank. World Development Indicators, http://data.worldbank.org/ (2012, accessed 17 February 2014).
64.
EichlerH-GKongSXGerthWC. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge?Value Health2004; 7(5): 518–528.
65.
TelserHZweifelP. Validity of discrete-choice experiments evidence for health risk reduction. Appl Econ2007; 39(1): 69–78.
66.
MarkTLSwaitJ. Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions. Health Econ2004; 13(6): 563–573.
