Potential screening participants’ and physicians’ preferences on optimizations of population based colorectal cancer screening, a discrete choice experiment
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
DISEASE(S): Colorectal Cancer
PROVIDER: 2443336 | ecrin-mdr-crc |
REPOSITORIES: ECRIN MDR
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGuidelines 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).MethodsIAR 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.ResultsPreferences 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.ConclusionsWhile 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.
| S-EPMC9385595 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6824571 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC2844026 | biostudies-other
Project description:This study explored individuals' preferences for genetic testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) in a screening situation and their willingness to participate in genetic testing for Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), and familial colorectal cancer (FCC). For that purpose, 532 respondents aged 55-65 years completed a Discrete Choice Experiment. Using panel latent class models, the preferences for two screening situation characteristics (the probability of being genetically predisposed and the probability of developing CRC) and screening test characteristics (the frequency of preventive colonoscopies and CRC survival) were estimated. Based on these preferences, respondents' willingness to participate in the three screening initiatives was estimated. Lower-educated respondents and respondents who express serious anxiety and worries found colonoscopy frequency and the probability of developing CRC relatively more important and survival relatively less important compared with higher-educated respondents and respondents who express no anxiety and worries. These differences in preferences resulted in opposite preferences for participation in FCC and FAP screening. In conclusion, the general population is willing to participate in genetic screening for CRC. If individuals are suspected of genetic or familial CRC, they should at least be informed about their increased risk of being genetically predisposed and about the importance of participating in all preventive follow-up colonoscopies in order to maximize survival.
| S-EPMC4755369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To elucidate and compare benefit-risk preferences among Korean patients and physicians concerning cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2) inhibitor treatments for arthritis.Subjects included 100 patients with arthritis and 60 board-certified orthopedic surgeon physicians in South Korea. Through a systematic review of the literature, beneficial attributes of using Cox-2 inhibitors were defined as a decrease in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index for pain score and improvement in physical function. Likewise, risk attributes included upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications and cardiovascular (CV) adverse events. Discrete choice experiments were used to determine preferences for these four attributes among Korean patients and physicians. Relative importance and maximum acceptable risk for improving beneficial attributes were assessed by analyzing the results of the discrete choice experiment by using a conditional logit model.Patients ranked the relative importance of benefit-risk attributes as follows: pain reduction (35.2%); physical function improvement (30.0%); fewer CV adverse events (21.5%); fewer GI complications (13.4%). The physicians' ranking for the same attributes was as follows: fewer CV (33.5%); pain reduction (32.4%); fewer GI complications (18.1%); physical function improvement (16.0%). Patients were more willing than physicians to accept risks when pain improved from 20% or 45% to 55% and physical function improved from 15% or 35% to 45%.We confirmed that patients and physicians had different benefit-risk preferences regarding Cox-2 inhibitors. Patients with arthritis prioritized the benefits of Cox-2 inhibitors over the risks; moreover, in comparison with the physicians, arthritis patients were more willing to accept the trade-off between benefits and risks to achieve the best treatment level. To reduce the preference gap and achieve treatment goals, physicians must better understand their patients' preferences.
| S-EPMC4854248 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC10021112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate whether physicians' prescribing preferences were valid instrumental variables for the antidepressant prescriptions they issued to their patients. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:We investigated whether physicians' previous prescriptions of (1) tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) vs. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and (2) paroxetine vs. other SSRIs were valid instruments. We investigated whether the instrumental variable assumptions are likely to hold and whether TCAs (vs. SSRIs) were associated with hospital admission for self-harm or death by suicide using both conventional and instrumental variable regressions. The setting for the study was general practices in the United Kingdom. RESULTS:Prior prescriptions were strongly associated with actual prescriptions: physicians who previously prescribed TCAs were 14.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.4, 15.4) more likely to prescribe TCAs, and those who previously prescribed paroxetine were 27.7 percentage points (95% CI, 26.7, 28.8) more likely to prescribe paroxetine, to their next patient. Physicians' previous prescriptions were less strongly associated with patients' baseline characteristics than actual prescriptions. We found no evidence that the estimated association of TCAs with self-harm/suicide using instrumental variable regression differed from conventional regression estimates (P-value = 0.45). CONCLUSION:The main instrumental variable assumptions held, suggesting that physicians' prescribing preferences are valid instruments for evaluating the short-term effects of antidepressants.
| S-EPMC3824069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We measure the social preferences of a sample of US medical students and compare their preferences with those of the general population sampled in the American Life Panel (ALP). We also compare the medical students with a subsample of highly educated, wealthy ALP subjects as well as elite law school students and undergraduate students. We further associate the heterogeneity in social preferences within medical students to the tier ranking of their medical schools and their expected specialty choice. Our experimental design allows us to rigorously distinguish altruism from preferences regarding equality-efficiency tradeoffs and accurately measure both at the individual level rather than pooling data or assuming homogeneity across subjects. This is particularly informative, because the subjects in our sample display widely heterogeneous social preferences in terms of both their altruism and equality-efficiency tradeoffs. We find that medical students are substantially less altruistic and more efficiency focused than the average American. Furthermore, medical students attending the top-ranked medical schools are less altruistic than those attending lower-ranked schools. We further show that the social preferences of those attending top-ranked medical schools are statistically indistinguishable from the preferences of a sample of elite law school students. The key limitation of this study is that our experimental measures of social preferences have not yet been externally validated against actual physician practice behaviors. Pending this future research, we probed the predictive validity of our experimental measures of social preferences by showing that the medical students choosing higher-paying medical specialties are less altruistic than those choosing lower-paying specialties.
| S-EPMC5715739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI)-based assistance tools have the potential to improve the quality of healthcare when adopted by providers. This work attempts to elicit preferences and willingness to pay for these tools among German radiologists. The goal was to generate insights for tool providers and policymakers regarding the development and funding of ideally designed and priced tools. Ultimately, healthcare systems can only benefit from quality enhancing AI when provider adoption is considered.MethodsSince there is no established market for AI-based assistance tools in radiology yet, a discrete choice experiment was conducted. Respondents from the two major German professional radiology associations chose between hypothetical tools composed of five attributes and a no-choice option. The attributes included: provider, application, quality impact, time savings and price. A conditional logit model was estimated identifying preferences for attribute levels, the no-choice option, and significant subject-related interaction effects.Results114 respondents were included for analysis of which 46% were already using an AI-based assistance tool. Average adoption probability for an AI-based tool was 81% (95% CI 77.1% - 84.4%). Radiologists preferred a tool that assists in routine diagnostics performing at above-radiologist-level quality and saves 50% in diagnostics time at a price-point of €3 per study. The provider is not a significant factor in the decisions. Time savings were considered more important than quality improvements (i.e., detecting more anomalies).ConclusionsRadiologists are overall willing to invest in AI-based assistance tools. Development, funding, and research regarding these tools should, however, consider providers' preferences for features of immediate everyday and economic relevance like time savings to optimize adoption.
| S-EPMC8959781 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAs novel, less invasive (non)endoscopic techniques for detection of Barrett's esophagus (BE) have been developed, there is now renewed interest in screening for BE and related neoplasia. We aimed to determine public preferences for esophageal adenocarcinoma screening to understand the potential of minimally invasive screening modalities.MethodsA discrete choice experiment was conducted in 1,500 individuals, aged 50-75 years, from the general population. Individuals were repeatedly asked to choose between screening scenarios based on conventional upper endoscopy, transnasal endoscopy, nonendoscopic cell collection devices, breath analysis, and a blood test, combined with various levels of test sensitivity and specificity, and no screening. A multinomial logit model was used to estimate individuals' preferences and to calculate expected participation rates.ResultsIn total, 554 respondents (36.9%) completed the survey. The average predicted uptake was 70.5% (95% confidence interval: 69.1%-71.8%). Test sensitivity (47.7%), screening technique (32.6%), and specificity (19.7%) affected screening participation (all P < 0.05). A low test sensitivity had the highest impact on screening participation, resulting in a 25.0% (95% confidence interval: 22.6%-27.7%) decrease. Respondents preferred noninvasive screening tests over endoscopic and capsule-based techniques, but only if sensitivity and specificity were above 80%.DiscussionOur study suggests that individuals generally prefer noninvasive BE screening tests. However, these tests would unlikely improve screening uptake when associated with a much lower accuracy for detecting BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma compared with conventional upper endoscopy. Improving accuracy of minimally invasive screening strategies and informing the target population about these accuracies is therefore essential to maximally stimulate screening participation.
| S-EPMC7587448 | biostudies-literature