title: Does the inclusion of a cost attribute result in different preferences for the surgical treatment of primary basal cell carcinoma?: a comparison of two discrete-choice experiments.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Nowadays, an increasing number of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) incorporate cost as an attribute. However, the inclusion of a cost attribute, particularly within collectively funded healthcare systems, can be challenging because health services or goods are generally not traded in a market situation and individuals are not used to paying for a service or a good at the point of consumption.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To examine whether the inclusion of a cost attribute in a DCE results in different preferences regarding a surgical treatment for primary basal cell carcinoma (BCC) compared with a DCE without a cost attribute.
  
  
  METHODS
  A randomized study was performed in which the impact of a cost attribute on the general public's preferences for a surgical treatment (Mohs micrographic surgery [MMS] or standard excision [SE]) to remove BCC was examined. This was done by comparing the outcomes of two DCEs, one with a cost attribute (DCE_cost) and one without (DCE_nocost). Six attributes (recurrence, re-excision, travel time, surgical time, waiting time for surgical results, costs) and their levels were selected, based on results of a clinical trial, a cost-effectiveness study, a review and a focus group of patients who had recently received treatment for BCC. Outcomes of both DCEs were compared in terms of theoretical validity, relative importance of the attributes and the rank order of preferences.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 615 respondents (n = 303 for DCE_nocost; n = 312 for DCE_cost) were interviewed by telephone. This gave an overall response rate of 38%. Respondents in DCE_nocost preferred a surgical treatment with a lower probability of recurrence, lower surgery time, lower waiting time and no risk for a re-excision. Respondents in DCE_cost showed the same preferences, but also preferred a treatment with less travel time and lower costs. Overall, respondents in both DCEs showed the same preference for a surgical treatment: MMS was preferred over SE.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Results suggest that, in this population, the inclusion of a cost attribute in a DCE leads to the same preference regarding a surgical treatment to remove BCC as a DCE without a cost attribute. However, further research in different settings is needed to confirm these findings.
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, University Hospital Maastricht, 6202 AZ Maastricht, the Netherlands. brigitte.essers@mumc.nl
authors.forename: Brigitte A B
authors.initials: BA
authors.lastname: Essers
authors.forename: Debby
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: van Helvoort-Postulart
authors.forename: Martin H
authors.initials: MH
authors.lastname: Prins
authors.forename: Martino
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Neumann
authors.forename: Carmen D
authors.initials: CD
authors.lastname: Dirksen
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002280:Basal Cell Carcinoma / Q000191:economics* / Q000601:surgery*; D002755:Choice Behavior; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D017048:Health Care Costs; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D057240:Patient Preference / Q000191:economics* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012878:Skin Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery*
references.citation: Arch Dermatol. 2006 Feb;142(2):187-94
references.pmid: 16490846
references.citation: Arch Dermatol. 1999 Oct;135(10):1177-83
references.pmid: 10522664
references.citation: Health Econ. 2005 Jul;14(7):687-701
references.pmid: 15619273
references.citation: Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-77
references.pmid: 18620460
references.citation: Lancet Oncol. 2008 Dec;9(12):1149-56
references.pmid: 19010733
references.citation: Lancet. 2004 Nov 13-19;364(9447):1766-72
references.pmid: 15541449
references.citation: J Health Econ. 2001 May;20(3):329-47
references.pmid: 11373834
references.citation: Value Health. 2009 Mar-Apr;12(2):331-9
references.pmid: 18647255
references.citation: Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(3):223-37
references.pmid: 17335308
references.citation: Health Serv Res. 2002 Dec;37(6):1681-705
references.pmid: 12546292
references.citation: Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(9):855-68
references.pmid: 16942121
references.citation: Health Econ. 2003 Jun;12(6):479-91
references.pmid: 12759917
references.citation: Br J Gen Pract. 2006 Dec;56(533):911-7
references.pmid: 17132378
references.citation: Value Health. 2004 Jul-Aug;7(4):442-54
references.pmid: 15449636
references.citation: Value Health. 2009 Jun;12(4):498-506
references.pmid: 18798809
references.citation: J Health Econ. 1998 Oct;17(5):587-605
references.pmid: 10185513
references.citation: Br J Dermatol. 2005 Mar;152(3):481-8
references.pmid: 15787817
references.citation: Health Econ. 2006 Nov;15(11):1217-28
references.pmid: 16786550
references.citation: Health Econ. 1998 Nov;7(7):595-603
references.pmid: 9845253