Parents of healthy children assign lower quality of life measure to scenarios labeled as cancer than to identical scenarios not labeled as cancer

Brenna M. McElderry, Emily L. Mueller, Abigail Garcia, Aaron Carroll, William E. Bennett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: While it is commonly understood that a cancer diagnosis evokes feelings of fear, the effect of labeling a child's illness as "cancer" remains unstudied. We hypothesized that lower health utility scores would be assigned to disease states labeled as cancer compared to identical disease states without the mention of cancer. Methods: In this randomized study, caregivers of healthy children were asked to assign health utility values to different scenarios written as improving, stable, or worsening. Participants from general pediatric clinics at Eskenazi Health were randomly assigned to either the scenarios labeled as "cancer" or "a serious illness". Participants then rated the scenarios using the Standard Gamble, with laddering of health utilities between 0 (a painless death) and 1 (perfect health). We also gathered subject demographics and assessed the subject's numeracy. Results: We approached 319 subjects and 167 completed the study. Overall median health utilities of "cancer" scenarios were lower than "serious illness" scenarios (0.61 vs. 0.72, p = 0.018). Multivariate regression (with an outcome of having a utility above the 75th percentile) showed no significant effects by race, ethnicity, numeracy, or income level. "Cancer" scenarios remained significantly lower after adjustment for confounders using logistic regression, but only for the more serious scenarios (OR 0.92, p = 0.048). Conclusions: On average, caregivers with healthy children were shown to take more risk with their treatment options and view their child as having a worse quality of life when they knew the disease was cancer. Awareness of this bias is important when discussing treatments with families, particularly when a risk of cancer is present.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number8
JournalBMC Psychology
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 21 2019

Fingerprint

Parents
Quality of Life
Neoplasms
Health
Caregivers
Fear
Emotions
Logistic Models
Demography
Pediatrics
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Cancer
  • Childhood
  • Decision making
  • Health utility
  • Quality of life

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Parents of healthy children assign lower quality of life measure to scenarios labeled as cancer than to identical scenarios not labeled as cancer. / McElderry, Brenna M.; Mueller, Emily L.; Garcia, Abigail; Carroll, Aaron; Bennett, William E.

In: BMC Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 8, 21.02.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7ecca6a7b36a4bab9c6d8cef170b827f,
title = "Parents of healthy children assign lower quality of life measure to scenarios labeled as cancer than to identical scenarios not labeled as cancer",
abstract = "Background: While it is commonly understood that a cancer diagnosis evokes feelings of fear, the effect of labeling a child's illness as {"}cancer{"} remains unstudied. We hypothesized that lower health utility scores would be assigned to disease states labeled as cancer compared to identical disease states without the mention of cancer. Methods: In this randomized study, caregivers of healthy children were asked to assign health utility values to different scenarios written as improving, stable, or worsening. Participants from general pediatric clinics at Eskenazi Health were randomly assigned to either the scenarios labeled as {"}cancer{"} or {"}a serious illness{"}. Participants then rated the scenarios using the Standard Gamble, with laddering of health utilities between 0 (a painless death) and 1 (perfect health). We also gathered subject demographics and assessed the subject's numeracy. Results: We approached 319 subjects and 167 completed the study. Overall median health utilities of {"}cancer{"} scenarios were lower than {"}serious illness{"} scenarios (0.61 vs. 0.72, p = 0.018). Multivariate regression (with an outcome of having a utility above the 75th percentile) showed no significant effects by race, ethnicity, numeracy, or income level. {"}Cancer{"} scenarios remained significantly lower after adjustment for confounders using logistic regression, but only for the more serious scenarios (OR 0.92, p = 0.048). Conclusions: On average, caregivers with healthy children were shown to take more risk with their treatment options and view their child as having a worse quality of life when they knew the disease was cancer. Awareness of this bias is important when discussing treatments with families, particularly when a risk of cancer is present.",
keywords = "Bias, Cancer, Childhood, Decision making, Health utility, Quality of life",
author = "McElderry, {Brenna M.} and Mueller, {Emily L.} and Abigail Garcia and Aaron Carroll and Bennett, {William E.}",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1186/s40359-019-0280-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
journal = "BMC psychology",
issn = "2050-7283",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Parents of healthy children assign lower quality of life measure to scenarios labeled as cancer than to identical scenarios not labeled as cancer

AU - McElderry, Brenna M.

AU - Mueller, Emily L.

AU - Garcia, Abigail

AU - Carroll, Aaron

AU - Bennett, William E.

PY - 2019/2/21

Y1 - 2019/2/21

N2 - Background: While it is commonly understood that a cancer diagnosis evokes feelings of fear, the effect of labeling a child's illness as "cancer" remains unstudied. We hypothesized that lower health utility scores would be assigned to disease states labeled as cancer compared to identical disease states without the mention of cancer. Methods: In this randomized study, caregivers of healthy children were asked to assign health utility values to different scenarios written as improving, stable, or worsening. Participants from general pediatric clinics at Eskenazi Health were randomly assigned to either the scenarios labeled as "cancer" or "a serious illness". Participants then rated the scenarios using the Standard Gamble, with laddering of health utilities between 0 (a painless death) and 1 (perfect health). We also gathered subject demographics and assessed the subject's numeracy. Results: We approached 319 subjects and 167 completed the study. Overall median health utilities of "cancer" scenarios were lower than "serious illness" scenarios (0.61 vs. 0.72, p = 0.018). Multivariate regression (with an outcome of having a utility above the 75th percentile) showed no significant effects by race, ethnicity, numeracy, or income level. "Cancer" scenarios remained significantly lower after adjustment for confounders using logistic regression, but only for the more serious scenarios (OR 0.92, p = 0.048). Conclusions: On average, caregivers with healthy children were shown to take more risk with their treatment options and view their child as having a worse quality of life when they knew the disease was cancer. Awareness of this bias is important when discussing treatments with families, particularly when a risk of cancer is present.

AB - Background: While it is commonly understood that a cancer diagnosis evokes feelings of fear, the effect of labeling a child's illness as "cancer" remains unstudied. We hypothesized that lower health utility scores would be assigned to disease states labeled as cancer compared to identical disease states without the mention of cancer. Methods: In this randomized study, caregivers of healthy children were asked to assign health utility values to different scenarios written as improving, stable, or worsening. Participants from general pediatric clinics at Eskenazi Health were randomly assigned to either the scenarios labeled as "cancer" or "a serious illness". Participants then rated the scenarios using the Standard Gamble, with laddering of health utilities between 0 (a painless death) and 1 (perfect health). We also gathered subject demographics and assessed the subject's numeracy. Results: We approached 319 subjects and 167 completed the study. Overall median health utilities of "cancer" scenarios were lower than "serious illness" scenarios (0.61 vs. 0.72, p = 0.018). Multivariate regression (with an outcome of having a utility above the 75th percentile) showed no significant effects by race, ethnicity, numeracy, or income level. "Cancer" scenarios remained significantly lower after adjustment for confounders using logistic regression, but only for the more serious scenarios (OR 0.92, p = 0.048). Conclusions: On average, caregivers with healthy children were shown to take more risk with their treatment options and view their child as having a worse quality of life when they knew the disease was cancer. Awareness of this bias is important when discussing treatments with families, particularly when a risk of cancer is present.

KW - Bias

KW - Cancer

KW - Childhood

KW - Decision making

KW - Health utility

KW - Quality of life

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061971540&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061971540&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s40359-019-0280-5

DO - 10.1186/s40359-019-0280-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 30791950

AN - SCOPUS:85061971540

VL - 7

JO - BMC psychology

JF - BMC psychology

SN - 2050-7283

IS - 1

M1 - 8

ER -