TABLE 3

Post Hoc Exploratory Analysis for Differences in Parent Preferences (Utility Scores) Between Groups (N = 95)

Parent Characteristicn (%)90% Cure, Mean Utility Score (SD)PNo Cognitive Impairment, Mean Utility Score (SD)P
Sex.98.89
 Female70 (74)47.7 (24.2)92.4 (39.4)
 Male25 (26)47.9 (17)91.1 (42)
Parent perception of prognosis.87.51
 ≥75% chance of cure81 (87)48 (23)91.1 (42.6)
 <75% chance of cure12 (13)46.9 (20.9)99.4 (17.4)
Preferred timing of late-effects information.14.75
 In initial diagnosis and treatment discussions68 (72)45.6 (22.1)92.9 (41.3)
 Not in initial diagnosis and treatment discussions27 (28)53.2 (22.7)90 (36.8)
Distress associated with late-effects information.72.48
 Extremely or very upsetting62 (67)47 (20.9)95 (35.5)
 Not extremely or very upsetting31 (33)48.7 (23.4)89.1 (43.3)
College graduate.06.48
 Yes72 (76)50.2 (23.7)93.7 (39.9)
 No23 (24)40.1 (15.9)87 (40.4)
Child age, y.47.68
 0–654 (57)46.4 (23.7)89.7 (42.9)
 7–1223 (24)52.8 (26)98.5 (31.3)
 13–1818 (19)45.5 (10.7)90.9 (41.5)
Diagnosis.1.66
 Brain tumor11 (12)38.9 (17.1)102 (14.3)
 Extracranial solid tumor32 (34)43.8 (19.2)92.4 (37.6)
 Hematologic malignancy52 (55)52.1 (24.5)89.8 (44.8)
Race and/or ethnicity.41.25
 White non-Hispanic73 (78)46.7 (21.4)95.1 (38.6)
 Other race and/or ethnicity20 (22)51.4 (26.7)83.5 (43.3)
Time from diagnosis to survey completion, d.6.8
 First 10020 (21)44.4 (24.6)93.9 (29.8)
 >10075 (79)47.6 (23.4)91.6 (39.5)
Recall of discussion of risk of cognitive impairment.8
 Yes28/94 (30)90.7 (33.7)
 No or do not remember66/94 (70)92.3 (39.5)
Perceived likelihood of cognitive impairment.052
 Extremely or very10/93 (11)71.8 (49.6)
 Somewhat21/93 (23)85.3 (33.8)
 A little or not at all62/93 (67)98.9 (34.1)
  • Mean and SD hierarchical Bayesian utility scores were compared between groups by using the t test or analysis of variance. —, not applicable.