Incorporating patients' preferences into colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations has been identified as a potential mechanism for increasing adherence. This study used conjoint analysis to describe variation in CRC screening preferences among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients.
We recruited patients ages 50-80 of a large practice-based research network stratified by white, African American, or Hispanic race/ethnicity to complete a preference assessment instrument. Participants were asked to rate 8 hypothetical CRC screening test scenarios comprised of different combinations of 5 attributes and 6 scenarios designed to depict guideline-recommended CRC screening tests (eg, fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema) including new technology (eg, virtual colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test). Responses were used to calculate the overall importance of test attributes, the relative importance of attribute levels, and to identify factors associated with preferences.
Two hundred twelve primary care patients were recruited to the study (74 white, 60 African American, 78 Hispanic). Of the guideline-recommended tests, 37% preferred COL, 31% FOBT, 15% BE, and 9% SIG. Ratings of new technology tests were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than ratings of guideline-recommended tests. The order of the importance of attributes was: what the test involved (37%), accuracy (19%), frequency (17%), discomfort (15%), and preparation (13%). Part-worth utilities for 1 attribute showed that collecting a stool sample was most preferable and endoscopy without sedation least preferable. Multivariate regression found that race/ethnicity and specific test attributes were independently associated (P < 0.05) with test preferences.
Primary care patients have distinct preferences for CRC screening tests that can be linked to test attributes. Racial/ethnic variations in test preferences persist when controlling for attributes. Tailoring screening recommendations to patients' preferences may increase screening adherence.
"Most previous research [e.g. 13–16] has asked participants to compare information on several tests and state their overall preference. However, this differs substantially from real screening invitations [e.g. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objectives
Compare public perceptions and intentions to undergo colorectal cancer screening tests following detailed information regarding CT colonography (CTC; after non-laxative preparation or full-laxative preparation), optical colonoscopy (OC) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).
A total of 3,100 invitees approaching screening age (45-54 years) were randomly allocated to receive detailed information on a single test and asked to return a questionnaire. Outcomes included perceptions of preparation and test tolerability, health benefits, sensitivity and specificity, and intention to undergo the test.
Six hundred three invitees responded with valid questionnaire data. Non-laxative preparation was rated more positively than enema or full-laxative preparations [effect size (r) = 0.13 to 0.54; p < 0.0005 to 0.036]; both forms of CTC and FS were rated more positively than OC in terms of test experience (r = 0.26 to 0.28; all p-values < 0.0005). Perceptions of health benefits, sensitivity and specificity (p = 0.250 to 0.901), and intention to undergo the test (p = 0.213) did not differ between tests (n = 144-155 for each test).
Despite non-laxative CTC being rated more favourably, this study did not find evidence that offering it would lead to substantially higher uptake than full-laxative CTC or other methods. However, this study was limited by a lower than anticipated response rate.
• Improving uptake of colorectal cancer screening tests could improve health benefits
• Potential invitees rate CTC and flexible sigmoidoscopy more positively than colonoscopy
• Non-laxative bowel preparation is rated better than enema or full-laxative preparations
• These positive perceptions alone may not be sufficient to improve uptake
• Health benefits and accuracy are rated similarly for preventative screening tests
European Radiology 07/2014; 24(7). DOI:10.1007/s00330-014-3187-9 · 4.01 Impact Factor
"Meanwhile, in order to establish a screening system which is likely to motivate residents to participate in screening, it is necessary to analyze attributes of screening more easily accepted by participates, such as the place, time, and cost of screening. In recent years in Europe and the United States, conjoint analysis, one of the stated preference techniques, is used for quantitative assessment of preferences for conditions allowing or promoting participation in cancer screening (Gyrd-Hansen and Sogaard, 2001; Marshall et al., 2007; Hawley et al., 2008; Hol et al., 2010; Ghanouni et al., 2013). In the past, it has been pointed out that the factors receiving emphasis are difficult to identify by reciprocal comparisons of multiple factors. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background:
Japanese women in their 40s or older have been encouraged to attend breast cancer screening. However, the breast cancer screening rate in Japan is not as high as in Europe and the United States. The aim of this study was to identify psychological and personal characteristics of women concerning their participation in breast cancer screening using the Health Belief Model (HBM). In addition, the attributes of screening more easily accepted by participants were analyzed by conjoint analysis.
Materials and methods:
In this cross sectional study of 3,200 age 20-69 women, data were collected by an anonymous questionnaire. Questions were based on HBM and personal characteristics, and included attitudes on hypothetical screening attributes. Data of women aged 40-69 were analyzed by logistic regression and conjoint analysis to clarify the factors affecting their participation in breast cancer screening.
Among responses collected from 1,280 women of age 20-69, the replies of 993 women of age 40-69 were used in the analysis. Regarding the psychological characteristics based on HBM, the odds ratios were significantly higher in "importance of cancer screening" (95%CI: 1.21-2.47) and "benefits of cancer screening" (95%CI: 1.09-2.49), whereas the odds ratio was significantly lower in "barriers to participation before cancer screening" (95%CI: 0.27-0.51). Conjoint analysis revealed that the respondents, overall, preferred screening to be low cost and by female staff members. Furthermore, it was also clarified that attributes of screening dominant in decision-making were influenced by the employment status and the type of medical insurance of the women.
In order to increase participation in breast cancer screening, it is necessary to disseminate accurate knowledge on cancer screening and to reduce barriers to participation. In addition, the attributes of screening more easily accepted were inexpensive, provided by female staff, executed in a hospital and finished in a short time.
Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 10/2013; 14(10):6041-8. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.10.6041 · 2.51 Impact Factor
"As may be evident, CA can serve as an important clinical and research tool to understand racial and ethnic disparities and what unique factors may underlie decision-making in diverse patient groups. This application of CA is beginning to be exploited in health literature [9,10], and no studies to our knowledge, have compared the predictive validity and temporal stability of CA techniques among diverse subgroups of minorities. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Conjoint Analysis (CA) can serve as an important tool to study health disparities and unique factors underlying decision-making in diverse subgroups. However, methodological advancements are needed in exploiting this application of CA. We compared the internal and external predictive validity and inter-temporal stability of Choice-based-Conjoint (CBC) analysis between African-Americans and Whites in the clinical context of preferences for analgesic treatment for cancer pain.
We conducted a prospective study with repeated-measures at two time-points (T1 = baseline; T2 = 3-months). African-Americans (n = 102); and Whites (n = 139) with cancer-related pain were recruited from outpatient oncology clinics in Philadelphia. Informed by pilot work, a computer-assisted CBC experiment was developed using 5 attributes of analgesic treatment: type of analgesic; expected pain relief; type of side-effects; severity of side-effects; and out-of-pocket cost. The design included 2 choice alternatives, 12 random tasks, 2 holdout tasks, and maximum of 6 levels per attribute. The internal and external predictive validity of CBC was estimated using Root Likelihood (RLH) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE), respectively. Inter-temporal stability was assessed using Cohen's kappa.
Whites predominantly traded based on "pain relief" whereas African-Americans traded based on "type of side-effects". At both time-points, the internal validity (RLH) was slightly higher for Whites than for African-Americans. The RLH for African-Americans improved at T2, possibly due to the learning effect. Lexicographic (dominant) behavior was observed in 29% of choice datasets; Whites were more likely than African-Americans to engage in a lexicographic behavior (60% vs. 40%). External validity (MAE) was slightly better for African-Americans than for Whites at both time-points (MAE: T1 = 3.04% for African-Americans and 4.02% for Whites; T2 = 8.04% for African-Americans; 10.24% for Whites). At T2, the MAE increased for both groups possibly reflecting an increase in the complexity of pain treatment decision-making based on expectations (T1) as opposed to reality (T2). The inter-temporal stability was fair for CBC attributes between T1 and T2 (kappa = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.24-0.32) and was not predicted by demographics including race.
While we found slight group differences, overall the internal and external predictive validity of CBC was comparable between African-Americans and Whites. We discuss some areas to investigate and improve internal and external predictive validity of CBC experiments.
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 10/2013; 13(1):118. DOI:10.1186/1472-6947-13-118 · 1.83 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.