Literature DB >> 19191268

How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey.

Deborah A Marshall1, F Reed Johnson, Nathalie A Kulin, Semra Ozdemir, Judith M E Walsh, John K Marshall, Stephanie Van Bebber, Kathryn A Phillips.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient preferences can affect colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test use. We compared utility-based preferences for alternative CRC screening tests from a stated-preference discrete-choice survey of the general population and physicians in Canada and the United States.
METHODS: General population respondents (Canada, n = 501; US, n = 1087) participated in a survey with 12 choice scenarios and 9 CRC screening test attributes. Physicians (n = 100, both Canada and US) reported expected patient preferences. We estimated relative importance of attributes using bivariate probit regression analysis and calculated willingness-to-pay for various CRC screening tests.
RESULTS: In 28 and 31% of scenarios, Canadian and US respondents, respectively, chose no screening over a hypothetical test. Canadian (45%) and US (46%) physicians expected patients to choose no screening more often. For all groups the most important attribute was sensitivity, but physicians' perception of patients' preferences are significantly different from actual preferences. Other key attributes are those related to test performance or the testing process. Fecal DNA, colonoscopy, and virtual colonoscopy were the most preferred tests by all groups, but respondents were willing-to-pay more than physicians predicted.
CONCLUSION: Physicians' perception of patients' preferences are quite different from those of the general population. However, among general population and physicians, Canadian and US preferences were similar. (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19191268      PMCID: PMC3964796          DOI: 10.1002/hec.1437

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  47 in total

1.  Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach.

Authors:  F R Johnson; M R Banzhaf; W H Desvousges
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care.

Authors:  M Ryan; S Farrar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-03

3.  Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability.

Authors:  S Bryan; L Gold; R Sheldon; M Buxton
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  The ATTEMPT cohort: a multi-national longitudinal study of predictors, patterns and consequences of smoking cessation; introduction and evaluation of internet recruitment and data collection methods.

Authors:  Robert West; Alicia Gilsenan; Florence Coste; Xiaolei Zhou; Remi Brouard; James Nonnemaker; Susan J Curry; Sean D Sullivan
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 6.526

5.  Physician and patient influences on the rate of colorectal cancer screening in a primary care clinic.

Authors:  Navkiran K Shokar; Carol A Carlson; Gurjeet S Shokar
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.037

6.  Primary care patients' understanding of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Anthony Greisinger; Sarah T Hawley; Judy L Bettencourt; Catherine A Perz; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev       Date:  2006-02-02

7.  Chronic constipation: a survey of the patient perspective.

Authors:  J F Johanson; J Kralstein
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2007-03-01       Impact factor: 8.171

8.  The effect of physician-patient discussions on the likelihood of prostate-specific antigen testing.

Authors:  Louie E Ross; Lisa C Richardson; Zahava Berkowitz
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 1.798

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

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; F Reed Johnson; Kathryn A Phillips; John K Marshall; Lehana Thabane; Nathalie A Kulin
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2007 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

10.  A review of studies examining stated preferences for cancer screening.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Stephanie Van Bebber; Deborah Marshall; Judith Walsh; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2006-06-15       Impact factor: 2.830

View more
  27 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.  In Reply.

Authors:  Barbara Nußbaumer; Gerald Gartlehner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 6.  Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  S Wortley; G Wong; A Kieu; K Howard
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 7.  Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Authors:  Otto S Lin; Richard A Kozarek; Michael Gluck; Geoffrey C Jiranek; Johannes Koch; Kris V Kowdley; Shayan Irani; Matthew Nguyen; Jason A Dominitz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Managed care patients' preferences, physician recommendations, and colon cancer screening.

Authors:  Sarah Hawley; Sarah Lillie; Greg Cooper; Jennifer Elston Lafata
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.229

9.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment.

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

10.  Can Streamlined Multicriteria Decision Analysis Be Used to Implement Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening?

Authors:  James G Dolan; Emily Boohaker; Jeroan Allison; Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.