eCite Digital Repository

An exploratory analysis of the “Was it worth it?” questionnaire as a novel metric to capture patient perceptions of cancer treatment

Citation

Thanarajasingram, G and Basch, E and Mead-Harvey, C and Bennett, AV and Mazza, GL and Schwab, G and Roydhouse, J and Rogak, LJ and Duek, AC, An exploratory analysis of the 'Was it worth it?' questionnaire as a novel metric to capture patient perceptions of cancer treatment, Value in Health, 25, (7) pp. 1081-1086. ISSN 1098-3015 (2022) [Refereed Article]


Preview
PDF (Fully published version)
Pending copyright assessment - Request a copy
882Kb

Preview
PDF
Pending copyright assessment - Request a copy
825Kb

Official URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...

DOI: doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1368

Abstract

Objectives

Asking "Was it worth it?" (WIWI) potentially captures the patient perception of a treatment’s benefit weighed against its harms. This exploratory analysis evaluates the WIWI questionnaire as a metric of patients’ perspectives on the worthwhileness of cancer treatment.

Methods

A 3-item WIWI questionnaire was assessed at end of treatment in patients with cancer on the COMET-2 trial (NCT01522443). WIWI items were evaluated to determine their association with quality of life (QOL), treatment duration, end-of-treatment reason, patient-reported adverse events (AEs), and disease response.

Results

A total of 65 patients completed the questionnaire; 40 (62%), 16 (25%), and 9 (14%) patients replied yes, uncertain, and no to "Was it worthwhile for you to receive the cancer treatment given in this study?" (item 1), respectively; 39 (60%), 12 (18%), and 14 (22%) to "If you had to do it over again, would you choose to have this cancer treatment?"; and 40 (62%), 14 (22%), and 11 (17%) to "Would you recommend this cancer treatment to others?" Patients responding yes to item 1 remained on treatment longer than those responding uncertain or no (mean 23.0 vs 11.3 weeks, P<.001). Patients responding uncertain/no to item 1 discontinued treatment because of AEs more frequently than those responding yes (36% vs 7.5%, P=.004) and demonstrated meaningful decline in QOL from baseline (−2.5 vs −0.2 mean change, P<.001). Associations between WIWI responses and most patient-reported AEs or treatment efficacy did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions

Patients who responded affirmatively on WIWI items remained on therapy longer, were less likely to stop treatment because of AEs, and demonstrated superior QOL. The WIWI may inform clinical practice, oncology research, and value frameworks.

Item Details

Item Type:Refereed Article
Keywords:adverse events, patient perspective, tolerability, toxicity, value, patient-reported outcomes, cancer
Research Division:Biomedical and Clinical Sciences
Research Group:Oncology and carcinogenesis
Research Field:Cancer therapy (excl. chemotherapy and radiation therapy)
Objective Division:Health
Objective Group:Evaluation of health and support services
Objective Field:Evaluation of health outcomes
UTAS Author:Roydhouse, J (Dr Jessica Roydhouse)
ID Code:150690
Year Published:2022
Deposited By:Menzies Institute for Medical Research
Deposited On:2022-06-24
Last Modified:2022-09-30
Downloads:0

Repository Staff Only: item control page