BACKGROUND: The introduction of innovative non-invasive screening tests (e.g. tests based on stool and blood samples or both) may be a solution to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. However, preferences for these non-invasive screening tests have not been investigated in great detail yet. The purpose of this article therefore is to elicit individuals' preferences for different non-invasive screening tests in a Dutch screening campaign context. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We investigate preferences by means of a labeled discrete choice experiment. Data of 815 individuals, aged 55-75 years, are used in the analysis. RESULTS: Multinomial logit model analysis showed that the combi-test is generally preferred over the blood-test and the (currently available) stool-test. Furthermore, besides the large effect of screening test type, there are significant differences in preference depending on participants' socio-demographic background. Finally, the analysis showed a significant positive effect on screening test choice for the attributes sensitivity, risk reduction, and level of evidence and a non-significant effect for the attribute unnecessary follow-up test. CONCLUSION: Introducing new non-invasive screening tests that are based on a combination of stool and blood samples (or blood sample only) has the potential to increase CRC screening participation compared to the current standard stool-based test.
BACKGROUND: The introduction of innovative non-invasive screening tests (e.g. tests based on stool and blood samples or both) may be a solution to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. However, preferences for these non-invasive screening tests have not been investigated in great detail yet. The purpose of this article therefore is to elicit individuals' preferences for different non-invasive screening tests in a Dutch screening campaign context. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We investigate preferences by means of a labeled discrete choice experiment. Data of 815 individuals, aged 55-75 years, are used in the analysis. RESULTS: Multinomial logit model analysis showed that the combi-test is generally preferred over the blood-test and the (currently available) stool-test. Furthermore, besides the large effect of screening test type, there are significant differences in preference depending on participants' socio-demographic background. Finally, the analysis showed a significant positive effect on screening test choice for the attributes sensitivity, risk reduction, and level of evidence and a non-significant effect for the attribute unnecessary follow-up test. CONCLUSION: Introducing new non-invasive screening tests that are based on a combination of stool and blood samples (or blood sample only) has the potential to increase CRC screening participation compared to the current standard stool-based test.
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: Andreas Adler; Sebastian Geiger; Anne Keil; Harald Bias; Philipp Schatz; Theo deVos; Jens Dhein; Mathias Zimmermann; Rudolf Tauber; Bertram Wiedenmann Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2014-10-17 Impact factor: 3.067
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
Authors: Joanne M Osborne; Ingrid Flight; Carlene J Wilson; Gang Chen; Julie Ratcliffe; Graeme P Young Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Sonja Neumeyer; Xinwei Hua; Petra Seibold; Lina Jansen; Axel Benner; Barbara Burwinkel; Niels Halama; Sonja I Berndt; Amanda I Phipps; Lori C Sakoda; Robert E Schoen; Martha L Slattery; Andrew T Chan; Manish Gala; Amit D Joshi; Shuji Ogino; Mingyang Song; Esther Herpel; Hendrik Bläker; Matthias Kloor; Dominique Scherer; Alexis Ulrich; Cornelia M Ulrich; Aung K Win; Jane C Figueiredo; John L Hopper; Finlay Macrae; Roger L Milne; Graham G Giles; Daniel D Buchanan; Ulrike Peters; Michael Hoffmeister; Hermann Brenner; Polly A Newcomb; Jenny Chang-Claude Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Erin L Symonds; Susanne K Pedersen; Rohan T Baker; David H Murray; Snigdha Gaur; Stephen R Cole; Geetha Gopalsamy; Dileep Mangira; Lawrence C LaPointe; Graeme P Young Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 4.488