The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Applying Best–Worst scaling methodology to establish delivery preferences of a symptom supportive care intervention in patients with lung cancer

Applying Best–Worst scaling methodology to establish delivery preferences of a symptom supportive care intervention in patients with lung cancer
Applying Best–Worst scaling methodology to establish delivery preferences of a symptom supportive care intervention in patients with lung cancer
Background: Delivering a non-pharmacological symptom management intervention in patients with lung
cancer is often challenging due to difficulties with recruitment, high attrition rates, high symptom burden,
and other methodological problems. The aim of the present study was to elicit quantitative estimates of
utility (benefit) associated with different attribute levels (delivery options) of a symptom management
intervention in lung cancer patients.
Methods: An application of Best–Worst scaling methodology was used. Effects (attributes) tested included
the location of the intervention (home or hospital), type of trainer (health professional or trained volunteer),
caregiver involvement or not, and intervention delivered individually or in groups of patients.
Participants were asked to evaluate and compare their preferences (utilities) towards the different
attribute levels within scenarios and select the pair of attribute levels that they consider to be furthest
apart.
Results: Eighty-seven patients with lung cancer participated. The most important preferences for an
intervention included the location (being delivered at home) and delivered by a health care professional.
The least important preference was the involvement of a caregiver. Gender had an effect on preferences,
with females being less inclined than men to prefer to receive an intervention in the home than the
hospital and less inclined than men to have no other patients present. Furthermore, older participants and
those in advanced stages of their disease were less inclined to have no other patients present compared
to younger participants and those with earlier stages of disease, respectively.
Conclusion: Considering patient preferences is an important step in developing feasible, patient-centred,
appropriate and methodologically rigorous interventions and this study provided indications of such
patient preferences.
0169-5002
199-204
Molassiotis, A.
cddf6fdc-a8f5-49cd-bc5b-f9787889e898
Elmsley, R.
6b50b9c8-b148-4eda-b463-85400b624d14
Ashcroft, D.
2a5f95ce-258a-4954-9c1e-5e7e6e7cf448
Caress, A.
46fb4b99-fe08-4603-8749-0b9b7c75d9c1
Ellis, J.
2dd4cce8-c2ae-44cd-8bda-6d877e371c2a
Wagland, Richard
16a44dcc-29cd-4797-9af2-41ef87f64d08
Bailey, C.
af803055-3a2d-42cf-813c-47558ca0a3e5
Haines, J.
5b0489b4-fb05-493a-8e65-81649f3c5bdf
Lloyd Williams, M.
5dcbaff4-d7e5-4a81-aea1-8d4f548b34bd
Lorigan, P.
42f0a90b-b129-4d62-aa8a-0463046f563b
Smith, J.
306ead64-2109-42a9-8d5d-56539de3a863
Tischelman, C.
90c59f8f-df10-4c27-82f8-e7f6d2213e7d
Blackhall, F.
3324569f-1ad3-43a5-af97-6f1f0b3acefb
Molassiotis, A.
cddf6fdc-a8f5-49cd-bc5b-f9787889e898
Elmsley, R.
6b50b9c8-b148-4eda-b463-85400b624d14
Ashcroft, D.
2a5f95ce-258a-4954-9c1e-5e7e6e7cf448
Caress, A.
46fb4b99-fe08-4603-8749-0b9b7c75d9c1
Ellis, J.
2dd4cce8-c2ae-44cd-8bda-6d877e371c2a
Wagland, Richard
16a44dcc-29cd-4797-9af2-41ef87f64d08
Bailey, C.
af803055-3a2d-42cf-813c-47558ca0a3e5
Haines, J.
5b0489b4-fb05-493a-8e65-81649f3c5bdf
Lloyd Williams, M.
5dcbaff4-d7e5-4a81-aea1-8d4f548b34bd
Lorigan, P.
42f0a90b-b129-4d62-aa8a-0463046f563b
Smith, J.
306ead64-2109-42a9-8d5d-56539de3a863
Tischelman, C.
90c59f8f-df10-4c27-82f8-e7f6d2213e7d
Blackhall, F.
3324569f-1ad3-43a5-af97-6f1f0b3acefb

Molassiotis, A., Elmsley, R., Ashcroft, D., Caress, A., Ellis, J., Wagland, Richard, Bailey, C., Haines, J., Lloyd Williams, M., Lorigan, P., Smith, J., Tischelman, C. and Blackhall, F. (2012) Applying Best–Worst scaling methodology to establish delivery preferences of a symptom supportive care intervention in patients with lung cancer. Lung Cancer, 77 (1), 199-204.

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: Delivering a non-pharmacological symptom management intervention in patients with lung
cancer is often challenging due to difficulties with recruitment, high attrition rates, high symptom burden,
and other methodological problems. The aim of the present study was to elicit quantitative estimates of
utility (benefit) associated with different attribute levels (delivery options) of a symptom management
intervention in lung cancer patients.
Methods: An application of Best–Worst scaling methodology was used. Effects (attributes) tested included
the location of the intervention (home or hospital), type of trainer (health professional or trained volunteer),
caregiver involvement or not, and intervention delivered individually or in groups of patients.
Participants were asked to evaluate and compare their preferences (utilities) towards the different
attribute levels within scenarios and select the pair of attribute levels that they consider to be furthest
apart.
Results: Eighty-seven patients with lung cancer participated. The most important preferences for an
intervention included the location (being delivered at home) and delivered by a health care professional.
The least important preference was the involvement of a caregiver. Gender had an effect on preferences,
with females being less inclined than men to prefer to receive an intervention in the home than the
hospital and less inclined than men to have no other patients present. Furthermore, older participants and
those in advanced stages of their disease were less inclined to have no other patients present compared
to younger participants and those with earlier stages of disease, respectively.
Conclusion: Considering patient preferences is an important step in developing feasible, patient-centred,
appropriate and methodologically rigorous interventions and this study provided indications of such
patient preferences.

Text
__soton.ac.uk_ude_personalfiles_users_rw1c09_mydocuments_RW publications_DCE article.pdf - Accepted Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy

More information

Published date: July 2012
Organisations: Faculty of Health Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 350723
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/350723
ISSN: 0169-5002
PURE UUID: 421d63be-eac1-4fc0-996f-d4d577eb8902
ORCID for Richard Wagland: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1825-7587
ORCID for C. Bailey: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-7528-6264

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 05 Apr 2013 17:58
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:35

Export record

Contributors

Author: A. Molassiotis
Author: R. Elmsley
Author: D. Ashcroft
Author: A. Caress
Author: J. Ellis
Author: Richard Wagland ORCID iD
Author: C. Bailey ORCID iD
Author: J. Haines
Author: M. Lloyd Williams
Author: P. Lorigan
Author: J. Smith
Author: C. Tischelman
Author: F. Blackhall

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×