Prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia: a conjoint analysis

BackgroundLiver cancer is a complex and burdensome disease, with Asia accounting for 75% of known cases. Comprehensive cancer control requires the use of multiple strategies, but various stakeholders may have different views as to which strategies should have the highest priority. This study identified priorities across multiple strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control (CLCC) from the perspective of liver cancer clinical, policy, and advocacy stakeholders in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Concordance of priorities was assessed across the region and across respondent roles.MethodsPriorities for CLCC were examined as part of a cross-sectional survey of liver cancer experts. Respondents completed several conjoint-analysis choice tasks to prioritize 11 strategies. In each task, respondents judged which of two competing CLCC plans, consisting of mutually exclusive and exhaustive subsets of the strategies, would have the greatest impact. The dependent variable was the chosen plan, which was then regressed on the strategies of different plans. The restricted least squares (RLS) method was utilized to compare aggregate and stratified models, and t-tests and Wald tests were used to test for significance and concordance, respectively.ResultsEighty respondents (69.6%) were eligible and completed the survey. Their primary interests were hepatitis (26%), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (58%), metastatic liver cancer (10%) and transplantation (6%). The most preferred strategies were monitoring at-risk populations (p<0.001), clinician education (p<0.001), and national guidelines (p<0.001). Most priorities were concordant across sites except for three strategies: transplantation infrastructure (p=0.009) was valued lower in China, measuring social burden (p=0.037) was valued higher in Taiwan, and national guidelines (p=0.025) was valued higher in China. Priorities did not differ across stakeholder groups (p=0.438).ConclusionsPriorities for CLCC in Asia include monitoring at-risk populations, clinician education, national guidelines, multidisciplinary management, public awareness and centers of excellence. As most priorities are relatively concordant across the region, multilateral approaches to addressing comprehensive liver cancer would be beneficial. However, where priorities are discordant among sites, such as transplantation infrastructure, strategies should be tailored to local needs.

[1]  M Ryan,et al.  Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. , 2001, Health technology assessment.

[2]  P. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook , 1978 .

[3]  Masatoshi Kudo,et al.  Identifying and prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia , 2011, BMC health services research.

[4]  Ding‐Shinn Chen Hepatocellular carcinoma in Taiwan , 2007, Hepatology research : the official journal of the Japan Society of Hepatology.

[5]  T. Flynn Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[6]  M. Kudo,et al.  Needs for hepatocellular carcinoma control policy in the Asia-Pacific region. , 2011, Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP.

[7]  Lewis R. Roberts,et al.  Hepatocellular carcinoma: a global view , 2010, Nature Reviews Gastroenterology &Hepatology.

[8]  N. Leech,et al.  Validity and Qualitative Research: An Oxymoron? , 2007 .

[9]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global cancer statistics , 2011, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[10]  Paul H. Gobster,et al.  Editorial: Progress and prospects , 2012 .

[11]  H. Sriplung,et al.  Epidemiology of liver cancer: an overview. , 2004, Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP.

[12]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[13]  Jie-fu Huang Ethical and legislative perspectives on liver transplantation in the People's Republic of China , 2007, Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society.

[14]  Craig Mitton,et al.  Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think? , 2004, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy.

[15]  D. Jamison,et al.  Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries , 1993 .

[16]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Conjoint Analysis, Related Modeling, and Applications , 2004 .

[17]  J. Marrero,et al.  Knowledge of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Guidelines and Clinical Practices Among Gastroenterologists , 2011, Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

[18]  D. Naber,et al.  A test of concordance between patient and psychiatrist valuations of multiple treatment goals for schizophrenia , 2013, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[19]  Douglas K. Martin,et al.  Evaluating priority setting success in healthcare: a pilot study , 2010, BMC health services research.

[20]  C. Mathers,et al.  Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008 , 2010, International journal of cancer.

[21]  R. Badwe,et al.  Guidelines for International Breast Health and Cancer Control-Implementation , 2008 .

[22]  J. Eyles,et al.  Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[23]  Lynda A. King,et al.  Focus groups in psychological assessment: enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. , 2004, Psychological assessment.

[24]  R. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Qualitative methods for assessing health care. , 1994, Quality in health care : QHC.

[25]  H. Masuoka,et al.  Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: expanding frontiers and building bridges. , 2011, Clinics in liver disease.

[26]  Shu-sen Zheng,et al.  Liver transplantation in China: problems and their solutions. , 2004, Hepatobiliary & pancreatic diseases international : HBPD INT.

[27]  A. Oshima,et al.  Liver cancer and its prevention. , 2005, Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP.

[28]  Liqun Liu,et al.  Longevity bias in cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2008, Health economics.

[29]  N. Dalkey,et al.  An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts , 1963 .

[30]  John F P Bridges,et al.  Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. , 2003, Applied health economics and health policy.

[31]  M. Plummer,et al.  International agency for research on cancer. , 2020, Archives of pathology.

[32]  Robert F Terry,et al.  A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice , 2010, Health research policy and systems.

[33]  F. Farinati,et al.  Hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma: primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention , 2011, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[34]  A. Street,et al.  Combinatorics of experimental design , 1987 .

[35]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[36]  M. Makuuchi,et al.  Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan: Consensus-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines Proposed by the Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) 2010 Updated Version , 2011, Digestive Diseases.

[37]  R. Dykstra An Algorithm for Restricted Least Squares Regression , 1983 .

[38]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare , 2002, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[39]  T. Pawlik,et al.  Priorities for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Control: A Comparison of Policy Needs in Five European Countries , 2012 .

[40]  L. Thurstone A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[41]  Maria Goddard,et al.  Priority setting in health – a political economy perspective , 2005, Health Economics, Policy and Law.

[42]  A. Ezzat,et al.  Book review: National cancer control programmes, policies and managerial guidelines. , 1996, Annals of Saudi medicine.

[43]  Fernando Lolas Stepke Reseña de "Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries" de Jamison, D.T., Breman, J.G., Measham, A.R., Alleyne, G., Claeson, M., Evans, D.B., Jha, P., Mills, A., Musgrove, P. (eds.) , 2006 .

[44]  J. Louviere,et al.  Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food Safety , 1992 .

[45]  M. Sherman,et al.  Multidisciplinary Canadian consensus recommendations for the management and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. , 2011, Current oncology.

[46]  Deborah Marshall,et al.  Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health — How are Studies being Designed and Reported? , 2010, The patient.

[47]  John P. F. Bridges,et al.  Estimating Patients&Apos; Preferences for Medical Devices: Does the Number of Profile in Choice Experiments Matter? , 2011 .

[48]  L. Mariani,et al.  Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: a retrospective, exploratory analysis. , 2009, The Lancet. Oncology.

[49]  J. Bridges,et al.  Condom avoidance and determinants of demand for male circumcision in Johannesburg, South Africa. , 2011, Health policy and planning.

[50]  Y. Cho,et al.  A study of the awareness of chronic liver diseases among Korean adults , 2011, The Korean journal of hepatology.

[51]  J. Tanaka,et al.  National Prevention of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan Based on Epidemiology of Hepatitis C Virus Infection in the General Population , 2005, Intervirology.

[52]  J. Louviere,et al.  Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[53]  Guanming Shi,et al.  Market potential for fine furniture manufactured from low-grade hardwood: Evidence from a conjoint analysis in the northeastern United States , 2004 .

[54]  Andrew Lloyd,et al.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[55]  A. Armour The Citizens’ Jury Model of Public Participation: A Critical Evaluation , 1995 .

[56]  Esther Seiden,et al.  On Orthogonal Arrays , 1966 .

[57]  J. Bridges,et al.  Engaging Families in the Choice of Social Marketing Strategies for Male Circumcision Services in Johannesburg, South Africa , 2010 .

[58]  T. Peters,et al.  Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. , 2007, Journal of health economics.

[59]  P. Chow,et al.  Management of hepatocellular carcinoma in Asia: consensus statement from the Asian Oncology Summit 2009. , 2009, The Lancet. Oncology.

[60]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

[61]  Mark Sculpher,et al.  Common Methodological Flaws in Economic Evaluations , 2005, Medical care.

[62]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion , 2008 .

[63]  J. Bridges What can economics add to health technology assessment? Please not just another cost-effectiveness analysis! , 2006, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[64]  D. Amarapurkar,et al.  Practical difficulties in the management of hepatitis B in the Asia–Pacific region , 2004, Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology.

[65]  Andrew D Oxman,et al.  Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 2. Priority setting , 2006, Health research policy and systems.