Henk Broekhuizen1, Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn2, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart3, Harry Groen4, Maarten J IJzerman2. 1. Department of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. Electronic address: h.broekhuizen@utwente.nl. 2. Department of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because early detection of lung cancer can substantially improve survival, there is increasing attention for lung cancer screening. OBJECTIVES: To estimate public preferences for lung cancer screening and to identify subgroups in preferences. METHODS: Seven important attributes were selected using the literature, interviews, and a panel session. Preferences were elicited using a swing weighting questionnaire. The resulting attribute weights indicate the relative importance of swings from the worst to the best level between attributes. Hierarchical clustering was used to identify subgroups with different attribute weights. RESULTS: One thousand thirty-four respondents from a representative Dutch panel aged between 40 and 80 years were included. The identified attributes were location of screening (weight = 0.18 ± 0.16), mode of screening (weight = 0.17 ± 0.14), sensitivity (weight = 0.16 ± 0.13) and specificity (weight = 0.13 ± 0.12) of the screening modality, waiting time until results (weight = 0.13 ± 0.12), radiation burden (weight = 0.13 ± 0.12), and duration of screening procedure (weight = 0.10 ± 0.09). Most respondents preferred breath analysis (45%) to giving blood samples (31%) or going through a scanner (24%) as screening modality; 59% preferred screening at the general practitioner's office instead of at the hospital. There was a significant difference in education between the five identified preference subgroups (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in how people value attributes of lung cancer screening. Different screening policies and implementation strategies may be appropriate for particular preference subgroups. Our results indicate that people prefer breath analysis and that they are more likely to attend screening modalities that can be used at a primary care facility.
BACKGROUND: Because early detection of lung cancer can substantially improve survival, there is increasing attention for lung cancer screening. OBJECTIVES: To estimate public preferences for lung cancer screening and to identify subgroups in preferences. METHODS: Seven important attributes were selected using the literature, interviews, and a panel session. Preferences were elicited using a swing weighting questionnaire. The resulting attribute weights indicate the relative importance of swings from the worst to the best level between attributes. Hierarchical clustering was used to identify subgroups with different attribute weights. RESULTS: One thousand thirty-four respondents from a representative Dutch panel aged between 40 and 80 years were included. The identified attributes were location of screening (weight = 0.18 ± 0.16), mode of screening (weight = 0.17 ± 0.14), sensitivity (weight = 0.16 ± 0.13) and specificity (weight = 0.13 ± 0.12) of the screening modality, waiting time until results (weight = 0.13 ± 0.12), radiation burden (weight = 0.13 ± 0.12), and duration of screening procedure (weight = 0.10 ± 0.09). Most respondents preferred breath analysis (45%) to giving blood samples (31%) or going through a scanner (24%) as screening modality; 59% preferred screening at the general practitioner's office instead of at the hospital. There was a significant difference in education between the five identified preference subgroups (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in how people value attributes of lung cancer screening. Different screening policies and implementation strategies may be appropriate for particular preference subgroups. Our results indicate that people prefer breath analysis and that they are more likely to attend screening modalities that can be used at a primary care facility.