Valuing quality of life for economic evaluations in cancer: navigating multiple methods.

Ng, C-A; De Abreu Lourenco, R; Viney, R; Norman, R; King, MT; Kim, N; Mulhern, B

Valuing quality of life for economic evaluations in cancer: navigating multiple methods.

Ng, C-A De Abreu Lourenco, R

Viney, R

Norman, R King, MT Kim, N

Mulhern, B

Permalink

Publisher:: TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 2024, 24, (10), pp. 1101-1114
Issue Date:: 2024-12

Embargoed

	Filename	Description	Size
	Valuing Quality of Life for Economic Evaluations in Cancer - Navigating Multiple Methods.pdf	Accepted version	571.03 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Embargoed
Open Access

This item is currently unavailable due to the publisher's embargo.

The embargo period expires on 19 Aug 2025

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Ng, C-A
dc.contributor.author	De Abreu Lourenco, R https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5978-8774
dc.contributor.author	Viney, R https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0039-9635
dc.contributor.author	Norman, R
dc.contributor.author	King, MT
dc.contributor.author	Kim, N https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5462-7939
dc.contributor.author	Mulhern, B https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3656-8063
dc.date.accessioned	2025-01-22T02:10:36Z
dc.date.available	2025-01-22T02:10:36Z
dc.date.issued	2024-12
dc.identifier.citation	Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 2024, 24, (10), pp. 1101-1114
dc.identifier.issn	1473-7167
dc.identifier.issn	1744-8379
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/183991
dc.description.abstract	INTRODUCTION: Utility values offer a quantitative means to evaluate the impact of novel cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL). However, the multiple methods available for valuing QoL present challenges in selecting the most appropriate method across different contexts. AREAS COVERED: This review provides cancer clinicians and researchers with an overview of methods to value QoL for economic evaluations, including standalone and derived preference-based measures (PBMs) and direct preference elicitation methods. Recent developments are described, including the comparative performance of cancer-specific PBMs versus generic PBMs, measurement of outcomes beyond health-related QoL, and increased use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Recommendations and considerations are provided to guide the choice of method for cancer research. EXPERT OPINION: We foresee continued adoption of the QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in cancer clinical trials given the extensive use of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G in cancer research. While these cancer-specific PBMs offer the convenience of eliciting utility values without needing a standalone PBM, researchers should consider potential limitations if they intend to substitute them for generic PBMs. As the field advances, there is a greater need for consensus on the approach to selection and integration of various methods in cancer clinical trials.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
dc.relation	Cancer Australia
dc.relation.ispartof	Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1080/14737167.2024.2393332
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess
dc.rights	This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research on 2024-08-19, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/14737167.2024.2393332.
dc.subject	1115 Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 1117 Public Health and Health Services, 1402 Applied Economics
dc.subject.classification	Health Policy & Services
dc.subject.classification	3214 Pharmacology and pharmaceutical sciences
dc.subject.classification	3801 Applied economics
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Preference
dc.subject.mesh	Research Design
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Research Design
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Preference
dc.title	Valuing quality of life for economic evaluations in cancer: navigating multiple methods.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	24
utslib.location.activity	England
utslib.for	1115 Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services
utslib.for	1402 Applied Economics
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/UTS Groups
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/UTS Groups/INSIGHT: Institute for Innovative Solutions for Well-being and Health/Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE)
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/UTS Groups/INSIGHT: Institute for Innovative Solutions for Well-being and Health
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/UTS Groups/Centre for Health Technologies (CHT)
utslib.copyright.status	embargoed	*
utslib.copyright.embargo	2025-08-19T00:00:00+1000Z
dc.date.updated	2025-01-22T02:10:34Z
pubs.issue	10
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	24
utslib.citation.issue	10

Abstract:

INTRODUCTION: Utility values offer a quantitative means to evaluate the impact of novel cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL). However, the multiple methods available for valuing QoL present challenges in selecting the most appropriate method across different contexts. AREAS COVERED: This review provides cancer clinicians and researchers with an overview of methods to value QoL for economic evaluations, including standalone and derived preference-based measures (PBMs) and direct preference elicitation methods. Recent developments are described, including the comparative performance of cancer-specific PBMs versus generic PBMs, measurement of outcomes beyond health-related QoL, and increased use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Recommendations and considerations are provided to guide the choice of method for cancer research. EXPERT OPINION: We foresee continued adoption of the QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in cancer clinical trials given the extensive use of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G in cancer research. While these cancer-specific PBMs offer the convenience of eliciting utility values without needing a standalone PBM, researchers should consider potential limitations if they intend to substitute them for generic PBMs. As the field advances, there is a greater need for consensus on the approach to selection and integration of various methods in cancer clinical trials.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/183991