M Pignone1, D Bucholtz, R Harris. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill 27599-7110, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure patient preferences for four different screening strategies: annual fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) alone; flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) every 5 years alone; both annual FOBT and FSIG every 5 years; or no screening. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: University internal medicine clinic. PATIENTS: Convenience sample of 146 adults (aged 50-75 years) with no previous history of colon cancer. INTERVENTION: Three-part educational program on colon cancer screening administered verbally by trained research assistants. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patient preferences for screening were measured at three points: after descriptive information about colon cancer and screening options (testing procedure information); after information about test performance but with no out-of-pocket costs (test performance information); and finally with hypothetical out-of-pocket costs (cost information). After only descriptive test information, the most popular strategies were FOBT alone (45%) or both tests (38%). Fewer patients preferred FSIG alone (13%). After information about test performance, more subjects preferred both tests (47%), and fewer subjects preferred FOBT alone (36%) (p =.12). With hypothetical out-of-pocket costs, the proportion preferring FOBT alone increased to 53%, while those preferring both tests decreased to 31% (p <.001). Less than 5% of patients preferred no screening. CONCLUSIONS: Patient preferences for colon cancer screening were modestly sensitive to information about test performance and strongly sensitive to out-of-pocket costs. The heterogeneity of patients' preferences for how to be screened supports informed shared decision making as a possible means of improving colon cancer screening.
OBJECTIVE: To measure patient preferences for four different screening strategies: annual fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) alone; flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) every 5 years alone; both annual FOBT and FSIG every 5 years; or no screening. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: University internal medicine clinic. PATIENTS: Convenience sample of 146 adults (aged 50-75 years) with no previous history of colon cancer. INTERVENTION: Three-part educational program on colon cancer screening administered verbally by trained research assistants. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Patient preferences for screening were measured at three points: after descriptive information about colon cancer and screening options (testing procedure information); after information about test performance but with no out-of-pocket costs (test performance information); and finally with hypothetical out-of-pocket costs (cost information). After only descriptive test information, the most popular strategies were FOBT alone (45%) or both tests (38%). Fewer patients preferred FSIG alone (13%). After information about test performance, more subjects preferred both tests (47%), and fewer subjects preferred FOBT alone (36%) (p =.12). With hypothetical out-of-pocket costs, the proportion preferring FOBT alone increased to 53%, while those preferring both tests decreased to 31% (p <.001). Less than 5% of patients preferred no screening. CONCLUSIONS:Patient preferences for colon cancer screening were modestly sensitive to information about test performance and strongly sensitive to out-of-pocket costs. The heterogeneity of patients' preferences for how to be screened supports informed shared decision making as a possible means of improving colon cancer screening.
Authors: S J Winawer; R H Fletcher; L Miller; F Godlee; M H Stolar; C D Mulrow; S H Woolf; S N Glick; T G Ganiats; J H Bond; L Rosen; J G Zapka; S J Olsen; F M Giardiello; J E Sisk; R Van Antwerp; C Brown-Davis; D A Marciniak; R J Mayer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Amy McQueen; L Kay Bartholomew; Anthony J Greisinger; Sharon P Coan; Ronald Myers; Sally W Vernon Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Charles E Basch; Randi L Wolf; Corey H Brouse; Celia Shmukler; Alfred Neugut; Lawrence T DeCarlo; Steven Shea Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-10-31 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Sumedha V Chablani; Noah Cohen; Drusilla White; Steven H Itzkowitz; Katherine DuHamel; Lina Jandorf Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2017-10
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; David Lanier; Marion R Nadel; Caroline McLeod; Gigi Yuan; Sally W Vernon Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-05-13 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ann C DeBourcy; Scott Lichtenberger; Susanne Felton; Kiel T Butterfield; Dennis J Ahnen; Thomas D Denberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: L Hol; E W de Bekker-Grob; L van Dam; B Donkers; E J Kuipers; J D F Habbema; E W Steyerberg; M E van Leerdam; M L Essink-Bot Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-03-02 Impact factor: 7.640