Dataset Information

Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Guidelines include several options for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that vary in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision. Thus, patient and provider preferences can help identify an appropriate screening strategy. This study elicited CRC screening preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for CRC (IAR).

Methods

IAR aged 45-75 years and licensed physicians (primary care or gastroenterology) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants were recruited from representative access panels in the US. Within the DCE, participants traded off preferences between screening type, screening frequency, true-positive, true-negative, and adenoma true positive (physicians only). A mixed logit model was used to obtain predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test.

Results

Preferences of IAR and physicians were affected by screening precision and screening type. IAR also valued more regular screening. Physicians preferred colonoscopy (96.8%) over mt-sDNA (2.8%; p < 0.001), FIT (0.3%; p < 0.001) and mSEPT9 blood test (0.1%; p < 0.01). IAR preferred mt-sDNA (38.8%) over colonoscopy (32.5%; p < 0.001), FIT (19.2%; p < 0.001), and mSEPT9 blood test (9.4%; p < 0.001). IAR naïve to screening preferred non-invasive screening (p < 0.001), while the opposite was found for those who previously underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy.

Conclusions

While physicians overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt-sDNA being most frequently preferred on average. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve CRC screening uptake among IAR. This study used a discrete choice experiment in the US to elicit preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer screening modalities and their characteristics.

SUBMITTER: Heidenreich S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9385595 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment.

Heidenreich Sebastian S Finney Rutten Lila J LJ Miller-Wilson Lesley-Ann LA Jimenez-Moreno Cecilia C Chua Gin Nie GN Fisher Deborah A DA

Cancer medicine 20220321 16

<h4>Background</h4>Guidelines include several options for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that vary in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision. Thus, patient and provider preferences can help identify an appropriate screening strategy. This study elicited CRC screening preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for CRC (IAR).<h4>Methods</h4>IAR aged 45-75 years and licensed physicians (primary care or gastroenterology) completed an online ...[more]

PMID: 35315224

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Guidelines underline the role of individual preferences in the selection of a screening test, as insufficient evidence is available to recommend one screening test over another. We conducted a study to determine the preferences of individuals and to predict uptake for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes using various screening tests. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire was distributed among naive subjects, yet to be screened, and previously screened subjects, aged 50-75 years. Subjects were asked to choose between scenarios on the basis of faecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), total colonoscopy (TC) with various test-specific screening intervals and mortality reductions, and no screening (opt-out). RESULTS: In total, 489 out of 1498 (33%) screening-naïve subjects (52% male; mean age+/-s.d. 61+/-7 years) and 545 out of 769 (71%) previously screened subjects (52% male; mean age+/-s.d. 61+/-6 years) returned the questionnaire. The type of screening test, screening interval, and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality influenced subjects' preferences (all P<0.05). Screening-naive and previously screened subjects equally preferred 5-yearly FS and 10-yearly TC (P=0.24; P=0.11), but favoured both strategies to annual FOBT screening (all P-values <0.001) if, based on the literature, realistic risk reduction of CRC-related mortality was applied. Screening-naive and previously screened subjects were willing to undergo a 10-yearly TC instead of a 5-yearly FS to obtain an additional risk reduction of CRC-related mortality of 45% (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: These data provide insight into the extent by which interval and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality affect preferences for CRC screening tests. Assuming realistic test characteristics, subjects in the target population preferred endoscopic screening over FOBT screening, partly, due to the more favourable risk reduction of CRC-related mortality by endoscopy screening. Increasing the knowledge of potential screenees regarding risk reduction by different screening strategies is, therefore, warranted to prevent unrealistic expectations and to optimise informed choice.

Project description:BackgroundRetaining specialist physicians in rural parts of India poses a fundamental challenge, which affects the health care system's functionality and provision of standard health care services. There has been an acute shortfall of specialist physicians in the fields of medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, and surgery at rural community health centers. This necessitates urgent policy focus to address the shortages and design effective rural retention strategies. In this study, which uses a discrete choice experiment (DCE), individuals choose from multiple-choice preferences that resemble hypothetical job descriptions.ObjectiveDCEs are a quantitative approach to assessing several aspects of job selection. This study aims to develop a detailed plan of a DCE method used to determine specialist physicians' job choices. This protocol outlines the DCE method, which uses an exploratory sequential mixed methods research design to understand specialist physicians' preferences and design reward packages that would effectively motivate them to work in underserved regions.MethodsThe qualitative phase of the study involved identifying job attributes and their corresponding levels for the DCE. We followed a meticulous process, which included reviewing relevant literature, performing qualitative pilot work, conducting in-depth individual interviews, and consulting with medical and health experts. The quantitative phase involved generating a D-efficient orthogonal fractional factorial design using Ngene software to create choice scenarios using the identified job factors and their corresponding levels. The generated choice scenarios were blocked into 6 versions in 6 blocks. The DCE was undertaken among final-year postgraduate medical residents and specialist physicians from several health care facilities in Rajasthan. Various statistical models will be applied to explore the response variability and quantify the trade-offs that participants are willing to make for nonmonetary features as a substitute for adjustments in the monetary attribute.ResultsAfter the ethics committee's approval of the study, the qualitative data collection phase occurred from September to December 2021, while the quantitative phase took place from May to August 2022. Six attributes and 14 levels were identified and established through qualitative surveys. The experimental design resulted in 36 choice situations, which were grouped into 6 blocks. The preliminary investigation demonstrated that the instrument was valid and reliable. Statistical data analysis has been initiated, and the principal findings are expected to be disseminated in January 2025.ConclusionsThe protocol provides a systematic framework to assess specialist physicians' preferences regarding working in rural health care centers. This research has the potential to substantially influence the future of rural health care by laying the foundation for understanding specialist physicians' choices, which will help design future incentive schemes, policy interventions, and research.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/59621.

Project description:BackgroundRisk stratification has been proposed to improve the efficiency of population-level cancer screening. We aimed to describe and quantify the relative importance of different attributes of potential screening programs among the public, focusing on stratifying eligibility.MethodsWe conducted a discrete choice experiment in which respondents selected between 2 hypothetical screening programs in a series of 9 questions. We presented the risk factors used to determine eligibility (age, sex, or lifestyle or genetic risk scores) and anticipated outcomes based on eligibility criteria with different sensitivity and specificity levels. We performed conditional logit regression models and used the results to estimate preferences for different approaches. We also analyzed free-text comments on respondents' views on the programs.ResultsA total of 1,172 respondents completed the survey. Sensitivity was the most important attribute (7 and 11 times more important than specificity and risk factors, respectively). Eligibility criteria based on age and sex or genetics were preferred over age alone and lifestyle risk scores. Phenotypic and polygenic risk prediction models would be more acceptable than screening everyone aged 55 to 70 y if they had high discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve ≥0.75 and 0.80, respectively).LimitationsAlthough our sample was representative with respect to age, sex, and ethnicity, it may not be representative of the UK population regarding other important characteristics. Also, some respondents may have not understood all the information provided to inform decision making.ConclusionsThe public prioritized lives saved from cancer over reductions in numbers screened or experiencing unnecessary follow-up. Incorporating personal-level risk factors into screening eligibility criteria is acceptable to the public if it increases sensitivity; therefore, maximizing sensitivity in model development and communication could increase uptake.HighlightsThe public prioritized lives saved when considering changing from age-based eligibility criteria to risk-stratified cancer screening over reductions in numbers of people being screened or experiencing unnecessary follow-up.The risk stratification strategy used to do this was the least important component, although age plus sex or genetics were relatively preferable to using age alone and lifestyle risk scores.Communication strategies that emphasize improvements in the numbers of cancers detected or not missed across the population are more likely to be salient than reductions in unnecessary investigations or follow-up among some groups.Future research should focus on developing implementation strategies that maximize gains in sensitivity within the context of resource constraints and how to present attributes relating to specificity to facilitate understanding and informed decision making.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Reaching an acceptable participation rate in screening programs is challenging. With the objective of supporting the Belarus government to implement mammography screening as a single intervention, we analyse the main determinants of breast cancer screening participation. METHODS:We developed a discrete choice experiment using a mixed research approach, comprising a literature review, in-depth interviews with key informants (n = 23), "think aloud" pilots (n = 10) and quantitative measurement of stated preferences for a representative sample of Belarus women (n = 428, 89% response rate). The choice data were analysed using a latent class logit model with four classes selected based on statistical (consistent Akaike information criterion) and interpretational considerations. RESULTS:Women in the sample were representative of all six geographic regions, mainly urban (81%), and high-education (31%) characteristics. Preferences of women in all four classes were primarily influenced by the perceived reliability of the test (sensitivity and screening method) and costs. Travel and waiting time were important components in the decision for 34% of women. Most women in Belarus preferred mammography screening to the existing clinical breast examination (90%). However, if the national screening program is restricted in capacity, this proportion of women will drop to 55%. Women in all four classes preferred combined screening (mammography with clinical breast examination) to single mammography. While this preference was stronger if lower test sensitivity was assumed, 28% of women consistently gave more importance to combined screening than to test sensitivity. CONCLUSION:Women in Belarus were favourable to mammography screening. Population should be informed that there are no benefits of combined screening compared to single mammography. The results of this study are directly relevant to policy makers and help them targeting the screening population.

Project description:IntroductionSelf-injectable calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) auto-injectors and non-CGRP oral medications are currently available for migraine prevention in Japan. This study elicited the preferences for self-injectable CGRP mAbs and non-CGRP oral medications and determined differences in the relative importance of auto-injector attributes for patients and physicians in Japan.MethodsJapanese adults with episodic (EM) or chronic (CM) migraine and physicians who treat migraine completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE), asking participants to choose a hypothetical treatment they preferred between two self-injectable CGRP mAb auto-injectors and a non-CGRP oral medication. The treatments were described by seven treatment attributes, with attribute levels varying between questions. DCE data were analyzed using a random-constant logit model to estimate relative attribution importance (RAI) scores and predicted choice probabilities (PCP) of CGRP mAb profiles.ResultsA total of 601 patients (79.2% with EM, 60.1% female, mean age: 40.3 years) and 219 physicians (mean length of practice: 18.3 years) completed the DCE. About half (50.5%) of patients favored CGRP mAb auto-injectors, while others were skeptical of (20.2%) or averse (29.3%) to them. Patients most valued needle removal (RAI = 33.8%), shorter injection duration (RAI = 32.1%), and auto-injector base shape and need for skin pinching (RAI = 23.2%). Most physicians (87.8%) favored auto-injectors over non-CGRP oral medications. Physicians most valued less-frequent dosing RAI = 32.7%), shorter injection duration (30.4%), and longer storage outside the fridge (RAI = 20.3%). A profile comparable to galcanezumab showed a higher likelihood of being chosen by patients (PCP = 42.8%) than profiles comparable to erenumab (PCP = 28.4%) and fremanezumab (PCP = 28.8%). The PCPs of the three profiles were similar among physicians.ConclusionMany patients and physicians preferred CGRP mAb auto-injectors over non-CGRP oral medications and preferred a treatment profile similar to galcanezumab. Our results may encourage physicians in Japan to consider patient preferences when recommending migraine preventive treatments.

Dataset Information

Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets