Literature DB >> 19692710

Eliciting population preferences for mass colorectal cancer screening organization.

Maximilien Nayaradou1, Célia Berchi, Olivier Dejardin, Guy Launoy.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The implementation of mass colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a public health priority. Population participation is fundamental for the success of CRC screening as for any cancer screening program. The preferences of the population may influence their likelihood of participation.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to elicit population preferences for CRC screening test characteristics to improve the design of CRC screening campaigns.
METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was used. Questionnaires were compiled with a set of pairs of hypothetical CRC screening scenarios. The survey was conducted by mail from June 2006 to October 2006 on a representative sample of 2000 inhabitants, aged 50 to 74 years from the northwest of France, who were randomly selected from electoral lists. Questionnaires were sent to 2000 individuals, each of whom made 3 or 4 discrete choices between hypothetical tests that differed in 7 attributes: how screening is offered, process, sensitivity, rate of unnecessary colonoscopy, expected mortality reduction, method of screening test result transmission, and cost.
RESULTS: Complete responses were received from 656 individuals (32.8%). The attributes that influenced population preferences included expected mortality reduction, sensitivity, cost, and process. Participants from high social classes were particularly influenced by sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that the discrete choice experiment provides information on patient preferences for CRC screening: improving screening program effectiveness, for instance, by improving test sensitivity (the most valued attribute) would increase satisfaction among the general population with regard to CRC screening programs. Additional studies are required to study how patient preferences actually affect adherence to regular screening programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19692710     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09342747

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  15 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Terry Flynn; Jordan Louviere; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  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

4.  Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Rebekah Hall; Antonieta Medina-Lara; Willie Hamilton; Anne E Spencer
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 5.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Older adults' preferences for colorectal cancer-screening test attributes and test choice.

Authors:  Christine E Kistler; Thomas M Hess; Kirsten Howard; Michael P Pignone; Trisha M Crutchfield; Sarah T Hawley; Alison T Brenner; Kimberly T Ward; Carmen L Lewis
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 2.711

7.  Using a discrete choice experiment to inform the design of programs to promote colon cancer screening for vulnerable populations in North Carolina.

Authors:  Michael P Pignone; Trisha M Crutchfield; Paul M Brown; Sarah T Hawley; Jane L Laping; Carmen L Lewis; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Lisa C Richardson; Florence Kl Tangka; Stephanie B Wheeler
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-11-30       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 8.  Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990-2013.

Authors:  Carol Mansfield; Florence K L Tangka; Donatus U Ekwueme; Judith Lee Smith; Gery P Guy; Chunyu Li; A Brett Hauber
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 2.830

9.  Patients' & healthcare professionals' values regarding true- & false-positive diagnosis when colorectal cancer screening by CT colonography: discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Darren Boone; Susan Mallett; Shihua Zhu; Guiqing Lily Yao; Nichola Bell; Alex Ghanouni; Christian von Wagner; Stuart A Taylor; Douglas G Altman; Richard Lilford; Steve Halligan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Public stated preferences and predicted uptake for genome-based colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Jilles M Fermont; Janine A van Til; Maarten J Ijzerman
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.