PURPOSE: To compare the effects of three methods of values clarification (VCM): balance sheet; rating and ranking; and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on decision-making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults in the US and Australia. METHODS: Using online panels managed by a survey research organization in the US and Australia, we recruited adults ages 50-75 at average risk for CRC for an online survey. Those eligible were randomized to one of the three VCM tasks. CRC screening options were described in terms of five key attributes: reduction in risk of CRC incidence and mortality; nature of the screening test; screening frequency; complications from screening; and chance of requiring a colonoscopy (as initial or follow-up testing). Main outcomes included self-reported most important attribute and unlabeled screening test preference by VCM and by country, assessed after the VCM. RESULTS:A total of 920 participants were enrolled; 51 % were Australian; mean age was 59.0; 87.0 % were white; 34.2 % had a 4-year college degree; 42.8 % had household incomes less than $45,000 USD per year; 44.9 % were up to date with CRC screening. Most important attribute differed across VCM groups: the rating and ranking group was more likely to choose risk reduction as most important attribute (69.8 %) than the balance sheet group (54.7 %) or DCE (49.3 %), p < 0.0001; most important attribute did not vary by country (p = 0.236). The fecal occult blood test (FOBT)-like test was the most frequently preferred test overall (55.9 %). Unlabeled test choice did not differ meaningfully by VCM. Australians were more likely to prefer the FOBT (AU 66.2 % vs. US 45.1 %, OR 2.4, 95 % CI 1.8, 3.1). Few participants favored no screening (US: 9.2 %, AU: 6.2 %). CONCLUSIONS: Screening test attribute importance varied by VCM, but not by country. FOBT was more commonly preferred by Australians than by Americans, but test preferences were heterogeneous in both countries.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of three methods of values clarification (VCM): balance sheet; rating and ranking; and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on decision-making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults in the US and Australia. METHODS: Using online panels managed by a survey research organization in the US and Australia, we recruited adults ages 50-75 at average risk for CRC for an online survey. Those eligible were randomized to one of the three VCM tasks. CRC screening options were described in terms of five key attributes: reduction in risk of CRC incidence and mortality; nature of the screening test; screening frequency; complications from screening; and chance of requiring a colonoscopy (as initial or follow-up testing). Main outcomes included self-reported most important attribute and unlabeled screening test preference by VCM and by country, assessed after the VCM. RESULTS: A total of 920 participants were enrolled; 51 % were Australian; mean age was 59.0; 87.0 % were white; 34.2 % had a 4-year college degree; 42.8 % had household incomes less than $45,000 USD per year; 44.9 % were up to date with CRC screening. Most important attribute differed across VCM groups: the rating and ranking group was more likely to choose risk reduction as most important attribute (69.8 %) than the balance sheet group (54.7 %) or DCE (49.3 %), p < 0.0001; most important attribute did not vary by country (p = 0.236). The fecal occult blood test (FOBT)-like test was the most frequently preferred test overall (55.9 %). Unlabeled test choice did not differ meaningfully by VCM. Australians were more likely to prefer the FOBT (AU 66.2 % vs. US 45.1 %, OR 2.4, 95 % CI 1.8, 3.1). Few participants favored no screening (US: 9.2 %, AU: 6.2 %). CONCLUSIONS: Screening test attribute importance varied by VCM, but not by country. FOBT was more commonly preferred by Australians than by Americans, but test preferences were heterogeneous in both countries.
Authors: Michael P Pignone; Alison T Brenner; Sarah Hawley; Stacey L Sheridan; Carmen L Lewis; Daniel E Jonas; Kirsten Howard Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: K L Flitcroft; D J B St John; K Howard; S M Carter; M P Pignone; G P Salkeld; L J Trevena Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Michael P Pignone; Kathy L Flitcroft; Kirsten Howard; Lyndal J Trevena; Glenn P Salkeld; D James B St John Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2011-02-21 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Michael Pignone; Melissa Rich; Steven M Teutsch; Alfred O Berg; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-07-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Angela Fagerlin; David Rovner; Sue Stableford; Christophir Jentoft; John T Wei; Margaret Holmes-Rovner Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-05-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Deborah A Marshall; F Reed Johnson; Nathalie A Kulin; Semra Ozdemir; Judith M E Walsh; John K Marshall; Stephanie Van Bebber; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Health Econ Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Christa E Martens; Trisha M Crutchfield; Jane L Laping; Lexie Perreras; Daniel S Reuland; Laura Cubillos; Michael P Pignone; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Channing E Tate; Daniel D Matlock; Alexandra F Dalton; Lisa M Schilling; Alexandra Marcus; Tiffany Schommer; Corey Lyon; Carmen L Lewis Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2018-04-25
Authors: Norma B Bulamu; Gang Chen; Tim Bright; Julie Ratcliffe; Adrian Chung; Robert J L Fraser; Björn Törnqvist; David I Watson Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 3.452
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
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
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