Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Understanding patient preferences in cancer management is essential for shared decision-making. Patient or societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) for desired outcomes in cancer management represents their preferences and values of these outcomes.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate how current literature has addressed WTP in relation to cancer treatment and achievement of outcomes.

Methods

Seven databases were searched from inception until 2 March 2021 to include studies with primary data of WTP values for cancer treatments or achievement of outcomes that were elicited using stated preference methods.

Results

Fifty-four studies were included in this review. All studies were published after year 2000 and more than 90% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Sample size of the studies ranged from 35 to 2040, with patient being the most studied population. There was a near even distribution between studies using contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment. Based on the included studies, the highest WTP values were for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ($11,498–$589,822), followed by 1-year survival ($3–$198,576), quality of life (QoL) improvement ($5531–$139,499), and pain reduction ($79–$94,662). Current empirical evidence suggested that improvement in QoL and pain reduction had comparable weights to survival in cancer management.

Conclusion

This systematic review provides a summary on stated preference studies that elicited patient preferences via WTP and summarised their respective values. Respondents in this review had comparable WTP for 1-year survival and QoL, suggesting that improvement in QoL should be emphasised together with survival in cancer management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files).

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Wang, H., Naghavi, M., Allen, C., Barber, R.M., Bhutta, Z.A., Carter, A., et al.: Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet. 388(10053), 1459–1544 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31012-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Knaul, F.M., Farmer, P.E., Krakauer, E.L., De Lima, L., Bhadelia, A., Jiang Kwete, X., et al.: Alleviating the access abyss in palliative care and pain relief—an imperative of universal health coverage: the Lancet Commission report. The Lancet. 391(10128), 1391–1454 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32513-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yabroff, K.R., Lund, J., Kepka, D., Mariotto, A.: Economic burden of cancer in the United States: estimates, projections, and future research. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 20(10), 2006–2014 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Luengo-Fernandez, R., Leal, J., Gray, A., Sullivan, R.: Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: a population-based cost analysis. Lancet Oncol. 14(12), 1165–1174 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70442-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rocque, G.B., Rasool, A., Williams, B.R., Wallace, A.S., Niranjan, S.J., Halilova, K.I., et al.: What is important when making treatment decisions in metastatic breast cancer? A qualitative analysis of decision-making in patients and oncologists. Oncologist. 24(10), 1313–1321 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0711

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kehl, K.L., Landrum, M.B., Arora, N.K., Ganz, P.A., van Ryn, M., Mack, J.W., et al.: Association of actual and preferred decision roles with patient-reported quality of care: shared decision making in cancer care. JAMA Oncol. 1(1), 50–58 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2014.112

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Joosten, E.A.G., DeFuentes-Merillas, L., de Weert, G.H., Sensky, T., van der Staak, C.P.F., de Jong, C.A.J.: Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother. Psychosom. 77(4), 219–226 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1159/000126073

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Doyle, C., Lennox, L., Bell, D.: A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open 3(1), e001570 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Whitehead, S.J., Ali, S.: Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br. Med. Bull. 96, 5–21 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bala, M., Mauskopf, J., Wood, L.: Willingness to pay as a measure of health benefits. Pharmacoeconomics 15(1), 9–18 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915010-00002

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Olsen, J.A., Smith, R.D.: Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness-to-pay’in health and health care. Health Econ. 10(1), 39–52 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1050(200101)10:1%3c39::aid-hec563%3e3.0.co;2-e

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ryan, M., Farrar, S.: Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 320(7248), 1530–1533 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. O’Brien, B., Gafni, A.: When do the" dollars" make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Med. Decis. Mak. 16(3), 288–299 (1996)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Klose, T.: The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 47(2), 97–123 (1999)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bridges, J.F.: Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl. Health. Econ. Health Policy. 2(4), 213–224 (2003)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. de Bekker-Grob, E.W., Donkers, B., Bliemer, M.C.J., Veldwijk, J., Swait, J.D.: Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? Soc. Sci. Med. 246, 112736 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Morrell, L., Wordsworth, S., Rees, S., Barker, R.: Does the public prefer health gain for cancer patients? A systematic review of public views on cancer and its characteristics. Pharmacoeconomics 35(8), 793–804 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0511-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Whitty, J.A., Lancsar, E., Rixon, K., Golenko, X., Ratcliffe, J.: A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. 7(4), 365–386 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0063-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. MacLeod, T., Harris, A., Mahal, A.: Stated and revealed preferences for funding new high-cost cancer drugs: a critical review of the evidence from patients, the public and payers. Patient. 9(3), 201–222 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0139-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin, P.J., Cangelosi, M.J., Lee, D.W., Neumann, P.J.: Willingness to pay for diagnostic technologies: a review of the contingent valuation literature. Value Health. 16(5), 797–805 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mansfield, C., Tangka, F.K., Ekwueme, D.U., Smith, J.L., Guy, G.P., Li, C., et al.: Stated preference for cancer screening: a systematic review of the literature, 1990–2013. Prev. Chronic Dis. 13, E27 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.150433

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Blanchard, P., Volk, R.J., Ringash, J., Peterson, S.K., Hutcheson, K.A., Frank, S.J.: Assessing head and neck cancer patient preferences and expectations: A Systematic review. Oral Oncol. 62, 44–53 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2016.09.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Guerra, R.L., Castaneda, L., de Albuquerque, R.C.R., Ferreira, C.B.T., Correa, F.M., Fernandes, R.R.A., et al.: Patient preferences for breast cancer treatment interventions: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 12(6), 559–569 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00375-w

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sugitani, Y., Sugitani, N., Ono, S.: Quantitative preferences for lung cancer treatment from the patients’ perspective: a systematic review. The Patient Patient-Cent. Outcomes Res. 13(5), 521–536 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00434-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schmidt, K., Damm, K., Prenzler, A., Golpon, H., Welte, T.: Preferences of lung cancer patients for treatment and decision-making: a systematic literature review. Eur. J. Cancer Care (Engl). 25(4), 580–591 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12425

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Damm, K., Vogel, A., Prenzler, A.: Preferences of colorectal cancer patients for treatment and decision-making: a systematic literature review. Eur J. Cancer Care. 23(6), 762–772 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12207

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bath-Hextall, F., Nalubega, S., Evans, C.: The needs and experiences of patients with skin cancer: a qualitative systematic review with metasynthesis. Br J Dermatol. 177(3), 666–687 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15148

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6(7), e100097 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  29. The World Bank. World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NY.GDP.DEFL.ZS. Accessed 2 Sep 2020

  30. Smith, R.D., Sach, T.H.: Contingent valuation: what needs to be done? Health Econ Policy Law. 5(Pt 1), 91–111 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133109990016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bridges, J.F., Hauber, A.B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L.A., Regier, D.A., et al.: Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 14(4), 403–413 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Benidir, T., Finelli, A., Hamilton, R., Hersey, K., Joshua, A., Kulkarni, G., et al.: Patient understanding regarding end-of-life prostate cancer and perspectives regarding cost/ benefit of current treatment paradigms. J. Urol. 193(4), e929 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Goldberg, R.J., Jang, R.W., Leighl, N.B.: A willingness-to-pay study of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 1, 6581 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jo, C.: Using discrete choice experiments to estimate the willingness to pay for cancer treatment in Korea: a general population study. Value Health. 13(3), A46 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-3015%2810%2972208-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jo, C.: Using discrete choice experiments to estimate the marginal willingness to pay of insurance premium for lung cancer treatment in Korea. Value Health. 13(7), A515 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jo, C., Cho, D.H.: Using discrete choice experiments to estimate the marginal willingness to pay of insurance premium for stomach cancer treatment in Korea. Value Health. 13(3), A46 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-3015%2810%2972207-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Konstantopoulou, T., Pacheco, R.: Patients’ preferences for breast cancer treatments: results of a discrete choice experiment (Dce) Survey from Spain, France Poland and Ireland. Value Health. 22(Supplement 3), S922–S923 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.2737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lalla, D., McLaughlin, T., Brammer, M., Bramley, T., Bare, A., Carlton, R.: Willingness to pay for a reduction in risk of treatment side effects in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Value Health. 14(7), A462 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.1251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Liao, C., Yang, M., Hung, Y., Chen, S., Tang, C.: A discrete choice experiment for engaging patients in reimbursement decision making: Patient preferences on adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Value Health. 18(7), A470 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Obradovic, M., Mrhar, A., Kos, M.: Willingness to pay for a life-year gained from the perspective of the general population. Value Health. 12(7), A284 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sousa, N., Costa, T., Monteiro-Soares, M., Goncalves, F. R., Azevedo, L. F.: Bias in valuation of health care benefits in metastatic prostate cancer: A contingent valuation of willingness to pay. J. Clin. Oncol. Conf. 35(15 Supplement 1) (2017)

  42. Tang, C.: Women’s preferences for breast reconstruction: a study using a discrete choice experiments. Value Health. 15(7), A406 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yucel, A., Chase, K., Kumar, R., Fuehrer, D., Bensink, M.: Pcn265 breast cancer patient preference and willingness to pay for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-Csf). Value Health. 22(Supplement 2), S107 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Golda, N., Black, W., Patel, V., Neal, D., Etzkorn, J.: Determining patient preferences and willingness to pay related to scar length and appearance after skin cancer treatment on the face and trunk: a multicenter discrete choice experiment. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 81(4), 1011–1013 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2019.01.080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Olofsson, S., Gerdtham, U.G., Hultkrantz, L., Persson, U.: Measuring the end-of-life premium in cancer using individual ex ante willingness to pay. Eur. J. Health Econ. 19(6), 807–820 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0922-6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Bazarbashi, S., De Vol, E.B., Maraiki, F., Al-Jedai, A., Ali, A.A., Alhammad, A.M., et al.: Empirical monetary valuation of a quality-adjusted life-year in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a willingness-to-pay analysis. PharmacoEconomics-Open 4(4), 625–633 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00211-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Thongprasert, S., Crawford, B., Sakulbumrungsil, R., Chaiyakunapruk, N., Petcharapiruch, S., Leartsakulpanitch, J., et al.: Willingness to pay for lung cancer treatment: Patient versus general public values. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 31(4), 264–270 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Finkelstein, E.A., Bilger, M., Flynn, T.N., Malhotra, C.: Preferences for end-of-life care among community-dwelling older adults and patients with advanced cancer: A discrete choice experiment. Health Policy 119(11), 1482–1489 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fischer, B., Telser, H., Zweifel, P.: End-of-life healthcare expenditure: testing economic explanations using a discrete choice experiment. J. Health Econ. 60, 30–38 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2018.06.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Malhotra, C., Farooqui, M.A., Kanesvaran, R., Bilger, M., Finkelstein, E.: Comparison of preferences for end-of-life care among patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers: a discrete choice experiment. Palliat. Med. 29(9), 842–850 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216315578803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Stenehjem, D.D., Au, T.H., Ngorsuraches, S., Ma, J.B.H., Wanishayakorn, T., Nelson, R.S., et al.: Immunotargeted therapy in melanoma: patient, provider preferences, and willingness to pay at an academic cancer center. Melanoma Res. 29(6), 626–634 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1097/CMR.0000000000000572

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Ngorsuraches, S., Thongkeaw, K.: Patients’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treatments after failure of standard treatments. Springerplus 4(1), 674 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1482-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Sun, H., Wang, H., Xu, N., Li, J., Shi, J., Zhou, N., et al.: Patient preferences for chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter discrete choice experiment (DCE) study in China. Patient Prefer. Adher. 13, 1701–1709 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S224529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lakdawalla, D.N., Romley, J.A., Sanchez, Y., Maclean, J.R., Penrod, J.R., Philipson, T.: How cancer patients value hope and the implications for cost-effectiveness assessments of high-cost cancer therapies. Health Aff. (Millwood). 31(4), 676–682 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lin, P.-J., Concannon, T.W., Greenberg, D., Cohen, J.T., Rossi, G., Hille, J., et al.: Does framing of cancer survival affect perceived value of care? A willingness-to-pay survey of US residents. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 13(4), 513–522 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2013.814948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Oh, D.Y., Crawford, B., Kim, S.B., Chung, H.C., McDonald, J., Lee, S.Y., et al.: Evaluation of the willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment in Korean metastatic breast cancer patients: A multicenter, cross-sectional study. Asia-Pac. J. Clin. Oncol. 8(3), 282–291 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-7563.2012.01546.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Meads, D., O’Dwyer, J., Hulme, C., Chintakayala, P., Vinall-Collier, K., Bennett, M.: Patient preferences for pain management in advanced cancer: results from a discrete choice experiment. Patient. 10(5), 643–651 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0236-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. O’Shea, E., Gannon, B., Kennelly, B.: Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in mental health care in Ireland. Health Policy 88(2–3), 359–370 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.03.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. O'Shea, E., Stewart, J.M., Donaldson, C., Shackley, P. Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in health care. Econ. Soc. Rev. 2001;32(3):217–38. http://www.esr.ie/issue/archive.

  60. Augustin, M., Blome, C., Forschner, A., Gutzmer, R., Hauschild, A., Heinzerling, L., et al.: Willingness to pay for a cure of low-risk melanoma patients in Germany. PLoS ONE (2018). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197780

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Franic, D.M., Pathak, D.S., Gafni, A.: Quality-adjusted life years was a poor predictor of women’s willingness to pay in acute and chronic conditions: results of a survey. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 58(3), 291–303 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lang, H.C., Chang, K., Ying, Y.H.: Quality of life, treatments, and patients’ willingness to pay for a complete remission of cervical cancer in Taiwan. Health Econ. (United Kingdom). 21(10), 1217–1233 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Lang, H.C.: Willingness to pay for lung cancer treatment. Value in Health. 13(6), 743–749 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00743.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Li, C., Zeliadt, S.B., Hall, I.J., Smith, J.L., Ekwueme, D.U., Moinpour, C.M., et al.: Willingness to pay for prostate cancer treatment among patients and their family members at 1 year after diagnosis. Value Health. 15(5), 716–723 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.03.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Cho, D., Jo, C.: Preference elicitation approach for measuring the willingness to pay for liver cancer treatment in Korea. Clin Mol Hepatol. 21(3), 268–278 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3350/cmh.2015.21.3.268

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Gyldmark, M., Morrison, G.C.: Demand for health care in Denmark: Results of a national sample survey using contingent valuation. Soc. Sci. Med. 53(8), 1023–1036 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536%2800%2900398-1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Luchini, S., Protiere, C., Moatti, J.P.: Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: application to health care. Health Econ. 12(1), 51–64 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Romley, J.A., Sanchez, Y., Penrod, J.R., Goldman, D.P.: Survey results show that adults are willing to pay higher insurance premiums for generous coverage of specialty drugs. Health Aff. 31(4), 683–690 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Essers, B.A.B., Dirksen, C.D., Prins, M.H., Neumann, H.A.M.: Assessing the public’s preference for surgical treatment of primary basal cell carcinoma: A discrete-choice experiment in the South of the Netherlands. Dermatol. Surg. 36(12), 1950–1955 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2010.01805.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Etzkorn, J.R., Tuttle, S.D., Lim, I., Feit, E.M., Sobanko, J.F., Shin, T.M., et al.: Patients prioritize local recurrence risk over other attributes for surgical treatment of facial melanomas-Results of a stated preference survey and choice-based conjoint analysis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 79(2), 210–9.e3 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.02.059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Lee, J.Y., Kim, K., Lee, Y.S., Kim, H.Y., Nam, E.J., Kim, S., et al.: Treatment preferences of advanced ovarian cancer patients for adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy. Gynecol. Oncol. 143(3), 622–627 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.10.021

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Lalla, D., Carlton, R., Santos, E., Bramley, T., D’Souza, A.: Willingness to pay to avoid metastatic breast cancer treatment side effects: results from a conjoint analysis. Springerplus 3(1), 350 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-350

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Dranitsaris, G., Leung, P., Ciotti, R., Ortega, A., Spinthouri, M., Liaropoulos, L., et al.: A multinational study to measure the value that patients with cancer place on improved emesis control following cisplatin chemotherapy. Pharmacoeconomics 19(9), 955–967 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119090-00007

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Miller, P.J.E., Balu, S., Buchner, D., Walker, M.S., Stepanski, E.J., Schwartzberg, L.S.: Willingness to pay to prevent chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting among patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. J. Med. Econ. 16(10), 1179–1189 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2013.832257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Johnson, P., Bancroft, T., Barron, R., Legg, J., Li, X., Watson, H., et al.: Discrete choice experiment to estimate breast cancer patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Value Health. 17(4), 380–389 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Teuffel, O., Cheng, S., Ethier, M.C., Diorio, C., Martino, J., Mayo, C., et al.: Health-related quality of life anticipated with different management strategies for febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Support. Care Cancer 20(11), 2755–2764 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1397-8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Bernard, M., Brignone, M., Adehossi, A., Pefoura, S., Briquet, C., Chouaid, C., et al.: Perception of alopecia by patients requiring chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer: A willingness to pay study. Lung Cancer 72(1), 114–118 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.07.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Regier, D.A., Diorio, C., Ethier, M.C., Alli, A., Alexander, S., Boydell, K.M., et al.: Discrete choice experiment to evaluate factors that influence preferences for antibiotic prophylaxis in pediatric oncology. PLoS ONE (2012). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047470

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Ha, T.V., Hoang, M.V., Vu, M.Q., Hoang, N.A.T., Khuong, L.Q., Vu, A.N., et al.: Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year among advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients in Viet Nam, 2018. Medicine (United States). (2020). https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019379

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Leighl, N.B., Tsao, W.S., Zawisza, D.L., Nematollahi, M., Shepherd, F.A.: A willingness-to-pay study of oral epidermal growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 51(1), 115–121 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2005.08.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Havet, N., Morelle, M., Remonnay, R., Carrere, M.-O.: Cancer patients' willingness to pay for blood transfusions at home: results from a contingent valuation study in a French Cancer Network. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2012;13(3):289–300. https://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/10198

  82. Davidson, B.A., Ehrisman, J., Reed, S.D., Yang, J.C., Buchanan, A., Havrilesky, L.J.: Preferences of women with epithelial ovarian cancer for aspects of genetic testing. Gynecol. Oncol. Res. Pract. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40661-019-0066-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Aristides, M., Chen, J., Schulz, M., Williamson, E., Clarke, S., Grant, K.: Conjoint analysis of a new Chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced Colorectal Cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 20(11), 775–784 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200220110-00006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Erdem, S., Thompson, C.: Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv. Res. 14, 360 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-360

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Najafzadeh, M., Johnston, K.M., Peacock, S.J., Connors, J.M., Marra, M.A., Lynd, L.D., et al.: Genomic testing to determine drug response: measuring preferences of the public and patients using Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). BMC Health Serv. Res. 13, 454 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-454

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Ngorsuraches, S.T.K.: Breast cancer patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for mtor inhibitors. J Am Pharm Assoc 55(2), e124–e5 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1331/JAPhA.2015.15515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Bien, D.R., Danner, M., Vennedey, V., Civello, D., Evers, S.M., Hiligsmann, M.: Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments. Patient. 10(5), 553–565 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Worldwide Palliative Care Alliance. Global Atlas of Palliative Care 2020.

  89. Smith, R.D.: Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ. 12(8), 609–628 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Bayoumi, A.M.: The measurement of contingent valuation for health economics. Pharmacoeconomics 22(11), 691–700 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422110-00001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H.: Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Reg. 58(10), 4601–4614 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  92. Harrison, G. W. Contingent valuation meets the experts: a critique of the NOAA Panel Report 2002.

  93. Ryan, M., Scott, D.A., Donaldson, C.: Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. J. Health Econ. 23(2), 237–258 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Ryan, M., Watson, V., Entwistle, V.: Rationalising the “irrational”: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 18(3), 321–336 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Bijlenga, D., Bonsel, G.J., Birnie, E.: Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes. Health Econ. 20(11), 1392–1406 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Howard, K., Salkeld, G.: Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value in Health. 12(2), 354–363 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00417.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Hauber, A.B., Gonzalez, J.M., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C.G., Prior, T., Marshall, D.A., Cunningham, C., et al.: Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 19(4), 300–315 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Reed Johnson, F., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., Muhlbacher, A., Regier, D.A., et al.: Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 16(1), 3–13 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Bridges, J.F., Hauber, A.B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L.A., Regier, D.A., et al.: Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 14(4), 403–413 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No external funds supported this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway, 47500, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

    Alene Sze Jing Yong, Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Siew Li Teoh

  2. School of Biosciences, Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

    Yi Heng Lim

  3. Hospis Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Ednin Hamzah

Authors
  1. Alene Sze Jing Yong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi Heng Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Wing Loong Cheong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ednin Hamzah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Siew Li Teoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by ALSJY, YHL and SLT. The first draft of the manuscript was written by ASJY and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siew Li Teoh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Alene Sze Jing Yong, Yi Heng Lim, Ednin Hamzah, Mark Wing Loong Cheong and Siew Li Teoh declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 72 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yong, A.S.J., Lim, Y.H., Cheong, M.W.L. et al. Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review. Eur J Health Econ 23, 1037–1057 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01407-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01407-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation