Carol Mansfield1, Donatus U Ekwueme2, Florence K L Tangka2, Derek S Brown3, Judith Lee Smith2, Gery P Guy2, Chunyu Li4, Brett Hauber5. 1. RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, 200 Park Offices Drive, PO Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA. carolm@rti.org. 2. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 4. Division of Global HIV and TB, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, 200 Park Offices Drive, PO Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Screening rates for colorectal cancer are below the Healthy People 2020 goal. There are several colorectal cancer screening tests that differ in terms of accuracy, recommended frequency, and administration. In this article, we compare how a set of personal characteristics correlates with preferences for colorectal cancer screening test attributes, past colorectal cancer screening behavior, and future colorectal cancer screening intentions. METHODS: We conducted a discrete-choice experiment survey to assess relative preferences for attributes of colorectal cancer screening tests among adults aged 50-75 years in USA. We used a latent class logit model to identify classes of preferences and calculated willingness to pay for changes in test attributes. A set of personal characteristics were included in the latent class analysis and analyses of self-reported past screening behavior and self-assessed likelihood of future colorectal cancer screening. RESULTS: Latent class analysis identified three types of respondents. Class 1 valued test accuracy, class 2 valued removing polyps and avoiding discomfort, and class 3 valued cost. Having had a prior colonoscopy and a higher income were predictors of the likelihood of future screening and membership in classes 1 and 2. Health insurance and a self-reported higher risk of developing colorectal cancer were associated with prior screening and higher future screening intentions, but not class membership. CONCLUSION: We identified distinct classes of preferences focusing on different test features and personal characteristics associated with reported behavior and intentions. Healthcare providers should engage in a careful assessment of patient preferences when recommending colorectal cancer test options to encourage colorectal cancer screening uptake.
BACKGROUND: Screening rates for colorectal cancer are below the Healthy People 2020 goal. There are several colorectal cancer screening tests that differ in terms of accuracy, recommended frequency, and administration. In this article, we compare how a set of personal characteristics correlates with preferences for colorectal cancer screening test attributes, past colorectal cancer screening behavior, and future colorectal cancer screening intentions. METHODS: We conducted a discrete-choice experiment survey to assess relative preferences for attributes of colorectal cancer screening tests among adults aged 50-75 years in USA. We used a latent class logit model to identify classes of preferences and calculated willingness to pay for changes in test attributes. A set of personal characteristics were included in the latent class analysis and analyses of self-reported past screening behavior and self-assessed likelihood of future colorectal cancer screening. RESULTS: Latent class analysis identified three types of respondents. Class 1 valued test accuracy, class 2 valued removing polyps and avoiding discomfort, and class 3 valued cost. Having had a prior colonoscopy and a higher income were predictors of the likelihood of future screening and membership in classes 1 and 2. Health insurance and a self-reported higher risk of developing colorectal cancer were associated with prior screening and higher future screening intentions, but not class membership. CONCLUSION: We identified distinct classes of preferences focusing on different test features and personal characteristics associated with reported behavior and intentions. Healthcare providers should engage in a careful assessment of patient preferences when recommending colorectal cancer test options to encourage colorectal cancer screening uptake.
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: Jennifer Elston Lafata; Gregory S Cooper; George Divine; Susan A Flocke; Nancy Oja-Tebbe; Kurt C Stange; Tracy Wunderlich Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: L van Dam; L Hol; E W de Bekker-Grob; E W Steyerberg; E J Kuipers; J D F Habbema; M L Essink-Bot; M E van Leerdam Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Judith Swan; Nancy Breen; Barry I Graubard; Timothy S McNeel; Donald Blackman; Florence K Tangka; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: L Hol; E W de Bekker-Grob; L van Dam; B Donkers; E J Kuipers; J D F Habbema; E W Steyerberg; M E van Leerdam; M L Essink-Bot Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-03-02 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Stephanie B Jilcott Pitts; C Suzanne Lea; Carrie L May; Chelsea Stowe; Dana J Hamill; Kelcy T Walker; Timothy L Fitzgerald Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Alex Ghanouni; Samuel G Smith; Steve Halligan; Andrew Plumb; Darren Boone; Guiqing Lily Yao; Shihua Zhu; Richard Lilford; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner Journal: Expert Rev Med Devices Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.166
Authors: Gilda G Medina; Amy McQueen; Anthony J Greisinger; L Kay Bartholomew; Sally W Vernon Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Susan A Sabatino; Mary C White; Trevor D Thompson; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Sebastian Heidenreich; Lila J Finney Rutten; Lesley-Ann Miller-Wilson; Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno; Gin Nie Chua; Deborah A Fisher Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 4.711
Authors: Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Bas Donkers; Jorien Veldwijk; Marcel F Jonker; Sylvia Buis; Jan Huisman; Patrick Bindels Journal: Patient Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 3.883