Literature DB >> 17888107

Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey.

Deborah A Marshall1, F Reed Johnson, Kathryn A Phillips, John K Marshall, Lehana Thabane, Nathalie A Kulin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake remains poor. Until we understand patient motivation and preferences for undertaking screening, it is unlikely the uptake will be optimal. Our objective is to examine patient preferences for CRC screening modalities and uptake rates using utility-based methods.
METHODS: The preference survey was mailed to a random sample of Canadian subjects aged 40 to 60 years from a primary care network. A fractional factorial experimental design maximized D-efficiency and included four blocks with 12 choice tasks in a conditional two-step design, two-alternative discrete choice format with five screening attributes (process, pain, preparation, sensitivity, and specificity). Bivariate probit regression analysis was used to estimate patient preferences for attributes, choice probabilities for alternative modalities and expected rates of uptake.
RESULTS: Five hundred forty-seven of 1047 surveys were returned. Almost 30% of respondents preferred no screening. The most preferred test attribute levels were noninvasive process (e.g., CT), no preparation, no pain, 100% specificity, and 90% sensitivity. Accuracy-related attributes were more important than test process-related attributes. Virtual colonoscopy was the most preferred, followed by colonoscopy, barium enema, sigmoidoscopy, and fecal DNA testing, based on simulated choice probability estimates. Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) was least preferred. Adjusted screening uptake rate estimates showed the greatest impact (42% increase) would be achieved if all CRC screening modalities were available rather than FOBT alone.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings emphasize the important role of patient preferences for no screening and in selecting alternative CRC screening modalities. CRC screening implementation in Canada should consider patient preferences to optimize uptake.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17888107     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00196.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  65 in total

1.  Deborah Marshall, PhD: An Advocate for Patient-Centered Research.

Authors:  Rebecca L Hancock-Howard
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 2.  A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Authors:  Inger M Janssen; Ansgar Gerhardus; Milly A Schröer-Günther; Fülöp Scheibler
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Measuring Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: What are the Implications for Moving Forward?

Authors:  Deborah Marshall; S Elizabeth McGregor; Gillian Currie
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia.

Authors:  Alison Brenner; Kirsten Howard; Carmen Lewis; Stacey Sheridan; Trisha Crutchfield; Sarah Hawley; Dan Reuland; Christine Kistler; Michael Pignone
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Patient-rated importance and receipt of information for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Susan A Flocke; Kurt C Stange; Gregory S Cooper; Tracy L Wunderlich; Nancy Oja-Tebbe; George Divine; Jennifer Elston Lafata
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Joachim Marti
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-06-26

7.  Valuations of genetic test information for treatable conditions: the case of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Vikram Kilambi; F Reed Johnson; Juan Marcos González; Ateesha F Mohamed
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 8.  Decision making about cancer screening: an assessment of the state of the science and a suggested research agenda from the ASPO Behavioral Oncology and Cancer Communication Special Interest Group.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Aimee S James; Isaac M Lipkus; Helen I Meissner; Michael Stefanek; Jamie L Studts; John F P Bridges; David R Close; Deborah O Erwin; Resa M Jones; Karen Kaiser; Kathryn M Kash; Kimberly M Kelly; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jason Q Purnell; Laura A Siminoff; Susan T Vadaparampil; Catharine Wang
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Patient perceptions of stool DNA testing for pan-digestive cancer screening: a survey questionnaire.

Authors:  Dennis Yang; Shauna L Hillman; Ann M Harris; Pamela S Sinicrope; Mary E Devens; David A Ahlquist
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Colorectal cancer screening by primary care physicians: recommendations and practices, 2006-2007.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.