Patient, Physician, and Caregiver Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

<b>Objectives:</b> This systematic review aimed to synthesize evidence from discrete choice experiments to explore the preferences of patients, physicians, and caregivers regarding lung cancer treatment. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic literature search was conducted utilizing the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases, encompassing publications up to 12 July 2024. We included published discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies that assessed preferences for lung cancer treatment among patients, physicians, or caregivers, with no restrictions on country, language, publication date, or disease stage. Two researchers independently conducted the literature screening and data extraction. The included studies were assessed for quality using the PREFS checklist. <b>Results:</b> Among the 1086 studies identified, 18 studies met the eligibility criteria. A total of 115 attributes were extracted and categorized into three main categories: outcome, process, and cost, with subcategories under each. Regarding the relative importance of attributes, heterogeneity was observed among stakeholders. The PREFS scores of the 18 included studies, with an average score of 3.8, reflect the high overall quality of these studies. <b>Conclusions:</b> This review revealed both commonalities and differences in lung cancer treatment preferences among patients, physicians, and caregivers. However, existing studies have certain limitations in the coverage of study populations, the scope of attributes, and the research design of the experiments.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Healthcare
Published
2026-02-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14050584
Primary Topic
Economic and Environmental Valuation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Patient, Physician, and Caregiver Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

Xiaoxi Xie, You Lü, Yi Liu, Mengyu Yang et al.
Healthcare
Economic and Environmental Valuation
article

Patient, Physician, and Caregiver Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

Xiaoxi Xie, You Lü, Yi Liu, Mengyu Yang, Linning Wang, Sida Wang, Jie Yu, Feng Chang
article en

Abstract

<b>Objectives:</b> This systematic review aimed to synthesize evidence from discrete choice experiments to explore the preferences of patients, physicians, and caregivers regarding lung cancer treatment. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic literature search was conducted utilizing the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases, encompassing publications up to 12 July 2024. We included published discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies that assessed preferences for lung cancer treatment among patients, physicians, or caregivers, with no restrictions on country, language, publication date, or disease stage. Two researchers independently conducted the literature screening and data extraction. The included studies were assessed for quality using the PREFS checklist. <b>Results:</b> Among the 1086 studies identified, 18 studies met the eligibility criteria. A total of 115 attributes were extracted and categorized into three main categories: outcome, process, and cost, with subcategories under each. Regarding the relative importance of attributes, heterogeneity was observed among stakeholders. The PREFS scores of the 18 included studies, with an average score of 3.8, reflect the high overall quality of these studies. <b>Conclusions:</b> This review revealed both commonalities and differences in lung cancer treatment preferences among patients, physicians, and caregivers. However, existing studies have certain limitations in the coverage of study populations, the scope of attributes, and the research design of the experiments.

HealthcareVol. 14(5)
China Pharmaceutical University (CN)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 45%
Economic and Environmental Valuation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.