Eve Wittenberg1, Monica Bharel2,3,4, Adrianna Saada5, Emely Santiago2, John F P Bridges6, Linda Weinreb7. 1. Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. ewittenb@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 6. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite having multiple risk factors, women experiencing homelessness are screened for cervical cancer at a lower rate than women in the general US population. We report on the design of a stated preference study to assess homeless women's preferences for cervical cancer screening interventions, to inform efforts to overcome this disparity. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with homeless women (n = 8) on cervical cancer screening decisions and analyzed the data using thematic analysis. We applied inclusion criteria to select factors for a stated preference survey: importance to women, relevance to providers, feasibility, and consistency with clinical experience. We conducted pretests (n = 35) to assess survey procedures (functionality, recruitment, administration) and content (understanding, comprehension, wording/language, length). RESULTS: We chose best-worst scaling (BWS)-also known as object scaling-to identify decision-relevant screening intervention factors. We chose an experimental design with 11 "objects" (i.e., factors relevant to women's screening decision) presented in 11 subsets of five objects each. Of 25 objects initially identified, we selected 11 for the BWS instrument: provider-related factors: attitude, familiarity, and gender; setting-related factors: acceptance and cost; procedure-related factors: explanation during visit and timing/convenience of visit; personal fears and barriers: concerns about hygiene, addiction, and delivery/fear of results; and a general factor of feeling overwhelmed. CONCLUSION: Good practices for the development of stated preference surveys include considered assessment of the experimental design that is used and the preference factors that are included, and pretesting of the presentation format. We demonstrate the development of a BWS study of homeless women's cervical cancer screening intervention preferences. Subsequent research will identify screening priorities to inform intervention design.
OBJECTIVE: Despite having multiple risk factors, women experiencing homelessness are screened for cervical cancer at a lower rate than women in the general US population. We report on the design of a stated preference study to assess homeless women's preferences for cervical cancer screening interventions, to inform efforts to overcome this disparity. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with homeless women (n = 8) on cervical cancer screening decisions and analyzed the data using thematic analysis. We applied inclusion criteria to select factors for a stated preference survey: importance to women, relevance to providers, feasibility, and consistency with clinical experience. We conducted pretests (n = 35) to assess survey procedures (functionality, recruitment, administration) and content (understanding, comprehension, wording/language, length). RESULTS: We chose best-worst scaling (BWS)-also known as object scaling-to identify decision-relevant screening intervention factors. We chose an experimental design with 11 "objects" (i.e., factors relevant to women's screening decision) presented in 11 subsets of five objects each. Of 25 objects initially identified, we selected 11 for the BWS instrument: provider-related factors: attitude, familiarity, and gender; setting-related factors: acceptance and cost; procedure-related factors: explanation during visit and timing/convenience of visit; personal fears and barriers: concerns about hygiene, addiction, and delivery/fear of results; and a general factor of feeling overwhelmed. CONCLUSION: Good practices for the development of stated preference surveys include considered assessment of the experimental design that is used and the preference factors that are included, and pretesting of the presentation format. We demonstrate the development of a BWS study of homeless women's cervical cancer screening intervention preferences. Subsequent research will identify screening priorities to inform intervention design.
Authors: Deborah Marshall; John F P Bridges; Brett Hauber; Ruthanne Cameron; Lauren Donnalley; Ken Fyie; F Reed Johnson Journal: Patient Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Stephen W Hwang; Joanna J M Ueng; Shirley Chiu; Alex Kiss; George Tolomiczenko; Laura Cowan; Wendy Levinson; Donald A Redelmeier Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Travis P Baggett; Stephen W Hwang; James J O'Connell; Bianca C Porneala; Erin J Stringfellow; E John Orav; Daniel E Singer; Nancy A Rigotti Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Kei Long Cheung; Ben F M Wijnen; Ilene L Hollin; Ellen M Janssen; John F Bridges; Silvia M A A Evers; Mickael Hiligsmann Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 4.981