A discrete choice experiment to examine preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) in previously treated breast cancer patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e17509 Background: As patient-centered care becomes more prominent, a better understanding of patient preferences and tradeoffs amongst treatment alternatives and outcomes is needed. This study used a discrete choice experiment to examine the preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic G-CSF to decrease the incidence of chemotherapy (CT)-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients who previously received CT. Methods: An online survey was developed with 16 paired treatment choice scenarios comparing 3 alternative G-CSF options (11 versus 1 or 6 versus 1 injections per CT cycle) with a follow-up “no treatment” option. Each scenario had 4 attributes: risk of disruption to CT schedule due to neutropenia, risk of infection requiring hospitalization, frequency of G-CSF administration, and total out-of-pocket (OOP) cost for G-CSF during a CT cycle. Patients’ preferences and willingness to pay (as OOP cost) were estimated using logistic regression. Results: Patients’ (n = 296) preferred G-CSF options with the lowest OOP costs, the fewest injections, and improved outcomes (lowest risk of disruption to CT schedule and lowest risk of infection requiring hospitalization). In the context of this discrete choice experiment, OOP costs and risk of disruption to CT schedule were the most important attributes to patients; risk of infection requiring hospitalization and frequency of G-CSF administration affected patients’ choice of G-CSF option to a smaller but similar degree. Patients were willing to pay OOP $1,076 per cycle to reduce the risk of disrupting the CT schedule from high to low, $884 per cycle to reduce the risk of developing an infection requiring hospitalization from 24% (high) to 7% (low), and $851 and $667 per cycle to decrease the number of G-CSF injections per cycle from 11 to 1 and 6 to 1, respectively. Conclusions: With a current focus on patient-centered approaches in decision-making, physicians need to consider patient preferences when making decisions about therapy, including supportive care agents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".