Open Research Newcastle
Browse

Preferences for life expectancy discussions following diagnosis with a life-threatening illness: a discrete choice experiment

Download (489.82 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2025-05-11, 17:29 authored by Amy Waller, Laura WallLaura Wall, Lisa MackenzieLisa Mackenzie, Scott BrownScott Brown, Martin H. N. Tattersall, Robert Sanson-Fisher
Purpose: To explore in a sample of adult cancer patients: (1) the relative influence of initiation source, information format and consultation format on preferred approach to life expectancy disclosure using a discrete choice experiment (DCE); and (2) whether patient age, cancer type and perceived prognosis were associated with preferences within the three attributes. Methods: A DCE survey of adult solid tumour and haematological cancer patients. Participants chose between three hypothetical scenarios about life expectancy disclosure consisting of three attributes: initiation source (i.e. doctor versus patient-initiated discussion), information content (i.e. estimate presented as best-worst-typical length of life case scenario versus median survival time) and consultation format (i.e. two 20-min versus one 40-min consultation). Respondents selected their most preferred scenario within each question. Results: Three hundred and two patients completed the DCE (78% consent rate). Initiation source was the most influential predictor of patient choice. More preferred a doctor deliver life expectancy information as soon as it is available rather than waiting for the patient to ask (59% vs 41% z = - 7.396, p < 0.01). More patients preferred the two 20-min rather than the one 40-min consultation format (55% vs 45%, z = 4.284, p < 0.01). Information content did not influence choice. Age, cancer type, and patient-perceived prognosis were not associated with preferences. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals should assess cancer patients' preferences for engaging in life expectancy discussions as soon as they have this information, and ensure patients have adequate time to consider the information they receive, seek additional information and involve others if they wish.

Funding

NHMRC

APP1010536

History

Journal title

Supportive Care in Cancer

Volume

29

Issue

1

Pagination

417-425

Publisher

Springer

Language

  • en, English

College/Research Centre

Faculty of Health and Medicine

School

School of Medicine and Public Health

Rights statement

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in the Supportive Care in Cancer. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05498-7