The authors wish to thank all of the patients and health care professionals who participated in the interviews and discrete choice experiment study, as well as the medical oncologists and reception staff who assisted with participant recruitment across southwestern Victoria, Australia.
See JNCCN.org for supplemental online content.
The authors have disclosed that they have no financial interests, arrangements, affiliations, or commercial interests with the manufacturers of any products discussed in this article or their competitors. Dr. Wong is supported by clinical postgraduate research scholarships from the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1074400), Rotary Bowel Scan, and Barwon South Western Regional Integrated Cancer Services.
FarmerJIversenLCampbellNC. Rural/urban differences in accounts of patients' initial decisions to consult primary care. Health Place2006;12:210–221.
BrownRButowPWilson-GendersonMMeeting the decision-making preferences of patients with breast cancer in oncology consultations: impact on decision-related outcomes. J Clin Oncol2012;30:857–862.
BlinmanPKingMNormanR. Preferences for cancer treatments: an overview of methods and applications in oncology. Ann Onco2012;23:1104–1110.
PeacockSApicellaCAndrewsL. A discrete choice experiment of preferences for genetic counselling among Jewish women seeking cancer genetics services. Br J Cancer2006;95:1448–1453.
HolLde Bekker-GrobEWvan DamL. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer2010;102:972–980.
MuhlbacherACBethgeS. Patients' preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Health Econ2015;16:657–670.
Cheraghi-SohiSHoleARMeadN. What patients want from primary care consultations: a discrete choice experiment to identify patients' priorities. Ann Fam Med2008;6:107–115.
GerardKSalisburyCStreetD. Is fast access to general practice all that should matter? A discrete choice experiment of patients' preferences. J Health Serv Res Policy2008;13(Suppl 2):3–10.
WongSFNormanRDunningTL. A protocol for a discrete choice experiment: understanding preferences of patients with cancer towards their cancer care across metropolitan and rural regions in Australia. BMJ Open2014;4:e006661.
BabitschBGohlDvon LengerkeT. Re-revisiting Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use: a systematic review of studies from 1998-2011. Psychosoc Med2012;9:Doc11.
ZwerinaKHuberJKuhfeldWF. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. Available at: https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~jch8/bio/Papers/Zwerina%20Kuhfeld%20Huber.pdf. Accessed February 8 2016.
HoleAR. Mixed logit modelling in Stata—an overview. 2013. Available at: http://www.stata.com/meeting/uk13/abstracts/materials/uk13_hole.pdf. Accessed February 8 2016.
EriksonCSalsbergEForteG. Future supply and demand for oncologists: challenges to assuring access to oncology services. J Oncol Pract2007;3:79–86.
HorrocksSAndersonESalisburyC. Systematic review of whether nurse practitioners working in primary care can provide equivalent care to doctors. BMJ2002;324:819–823.
CurrieGRDonaldsonCO'BrienBJ. Willingness to pay for what? A note on alternative definitions of health care program benefits for contingent valuation studies. Med Decis Making2002;22:493–497.
The Department of Health. Evaluating the Health & Hospitals Fund (HHF): Summary of Evaluation Findings. Available at: http://bit.ly/1SGgmvb. Accessed February 8 2016.
AliSRonaldsonS. Ordinal preference elicitation methods in health economics and health services research: using discrete choice experiments and ranking methods. Br Med Bull2012;103:21–44.
BanksPMathesonLMorrissyK. Characteristics of cancer diagnoses and staging in South Western Victoria: a rural perspective. Aust J Rural Health2014;22:257–263.