Assessing Stated Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Critical Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
It is well established that screening is effective in reducing the incidence and mortality associated with colorectal cancer (CRC). National screening programs have been implemented in many countries; however, uptake remains an issue. Understanding patient preferences may assist in shaping screening programs and tailoring information about screening tests.
Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) of CRC screening.
A systematic review of DCEs of CRC screening was undertaken in an average-risk general population. The methodological qualities of the studies were assessed using a standard checklist outlining best practice for conjoint studies.
Nine studies met the selection criteria. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the data and methods. However, in eight studies, attributes describing accuracy and/or clinical effectiveness were reported to be statistically significant. We also found that individuals were willing to trade-off other attributes such as an increased risk of complications to gain greater clinical benefits. Screening was also preferred to non-screening by the majority of respondents, regardless of the test used.
Understanding and incorporating individuals’ preferences in decision making is increasingly considered essential in the health field. Data from DCEs can provide valuable insights into the trade-offs individuals are willing to undertake in respect to CRC screening. Such insights can be used by decision makers to identify screening tests that could maximize informed uptake. It is likely that, with better reporting and evolving methodology, the contribution that DCEs can make to such debates will increase.
- Australia Institute of Health and Welfare & Australia Government Department of Health and Ageing. National Bowel Cancer Screening Program monitoring report 2008. Cancer Series 44, Cat. No 40. 2008. Canberra, AIHW. Ref Type: Report.
- Mandel JS, Church TR, Ederer F, Bond JH. Colorectal cancer mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:434–7. CrossRef
- Scholefield JH, Moss S, Sufi F, Mangham CM, Hardcastle JD. Effect of faecal occult blood screening on mortality from colorectal cancer: results from a randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2002;50:840–4. CrossRef
- Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, O’Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS, Waye JD, Schapiro M, Bond JH, Panish JF. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–81. CrossRef
- Young GP, St John DJ, Winawer SJ, Rozen P. Choice of fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening: recommendations based on performance characteristics in population studies: a WHO (World Health Organization) and OMED (World Organization for Digestive Endoscopy) report. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:2499–507.
- Center MM, Jemal A, Smith RA, Ward E. Worldwide variations in colorectal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:366–78. CrossRef
- Hol L, Van Leerdam ME, Van Ballegooijen M, Van Vuuren AJ, Van Dekken H, Reijerink JC, Van der Togt AC, Habbema JDF, Kuipers EJ. Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gut. 2010;59:62–8. CrossRef
- Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R. Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection—systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2011;259:393–405. CrossRef
- Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, Wooldrage K, Hart AR, Northover J, Parkin DM, Wardle J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:1624–33. CrossRef
- Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, Church T, Laiyemo AO, Bresalier R, Andriole GL, Buys SS, Crawford ED. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2345–57. CrossRef
- Agrez MV, Redman S, Sanson-Fisher R, Hennrikus D. Feasibility of sigmoidoscopic screening for colorectal cancer in the Hunter Region. Aust N Z J Surg. 1990;60:87–92.
- Kewenter J, Brevinge H, Engaras B, Haglind E, Ahrén C (1994) Results of screening, rescreening, and follow-up in a prospective randomized study for detection of colorectal cancer by fecal occult blood testing: results for 68,308 subjects. Scand J Gastroenterol 29:468–473.
- Wolf RL, Basch CE, Brouse CH, Shmukler C, Shea S. Patient preferences and adherence to colorectal cancer screening in an urban population. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:809–11. CrossRef
- Salkeld GP, Solomon MJ, Short L, Ward J. Measuring the importance of attributes that influence consumer attitudes to colorectal cancer screening. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73:128–32. CrossRef
- Smith SK, Trevena L, Simpson JM, Barratt A, Nutbeam D, McCaffery KJ. A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010; 341:c5370.
- von Wagner C, Good A, Smith SG, Wardle J. Responses to procedural information about colorectal cancer screening using faecal occult blood testing: the role of consideration of future consequences. Health Expect. 2012;15:176–86. CrossRef
- de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ (GBR). 2012;21:145–72. CrossRef
- Phillips KA, Van BS, Marshall D, Walsh J, Thabane L. A review of studies examining stated preferences for cancer screening. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006;3:A75.
- Marshall D, McGregor SE, Currie G. Measuring preferences for colorectal cancer screening: what are the implications for moving forward? Patient. 2010;3:79–89. CrossRef
- Ghanouni A, Smith SG, Halligan S, Plumb A, Boone D, Yao GL, Zhu S, Lilford R, Wardle J, von Wagner C. Public preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests: a review of conjoint analysis studies. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013;10:489–99. CrossRef
- Salkeld G, Solomon M, Short L, Ryan M, Ward JE. Evidence-based consumer choice: a case study in colorectal cancer screening. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2003;27:449–55. CrossRef
- Gyrd-Hansen D, Sogaard J. Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Econ (GBR). 2001;10:617–34. CrossRef
- Frew E, Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK. Willingness-to-pay for colorectal cancer screening. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:1746–51. CrossRef
- Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Val Health. 2011;14:403–13. CrossRef
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9. CrossRef
- Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77. CrossRef
- Pignone MP, Brenner AT, Hawley S, Sheridan SL, Lewis CL, Jonas DE, Howard K. Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:45–50. CrossRef
- de Bekker-Grob EW, Hol L, Donkers B, van Dam L, Habbema JD, van Leerdam ME, Kuipers EJ, Essink-Bot ML, Steyerberg EW. Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Val Health. 2010;13:315–23. CrossRef
- Cheng J, Pullenayegum E, Marshall DA, Marshall JK, Thabane L. An empirical comparison of methods for analyzing correlated data from a discrete choice survey to elicit patient preference for colorectal cancer screening. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:15. CrossRef
- van Dam L, Hol L, de Bekker-Grob EW, Steyerberg EW, Kuipers EJ, Habbema JD, Essink-Bot ML, van Leerdam ME. What determines individuals’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:150–9. CrossRef
- Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Val Health. 2007;10:415–30. CrossRef
- Howard K, Salkeld G. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value Health. 2009;12:354–63. CrossRef
- Whynes DK, Frew E, Wolstenholme JL. A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. J Health Econ. 2003;22:555–74. CrossRef
- Imaeda A, Bender D, Fraenkel L. What is most important to patients when deciding about colorectal screening? J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:688–93. CrossRef
- Hawley ST, Volk RJ, Krishnamurthy P, Jibaja-Weiss M, Vernon SW, Kneuper S. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients. Med Care. 2008;46(Suppl 1):S10–16.
- Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ (GBR). 2000;9:267–70. CrossRef
- Hol L, de Bekker-Grob EW, van Dam L, Donkers B, Kuipers EJ, Habbema JD, Steyerberg EW, van Leerdam ME, Essink-Bot ML. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2010;102:972–80. CrossRef
- Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Kulin NA, Ozdemir S, Walsh JM, Marshall JK, Van BS, Phillips KA. How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ (GBR). 2009;18:1420–39. CrossRef
- Nayaradou M, Berchi C, Dejardin O, Launoy G. Eliciting population preferences for mass colorectal cancer screening organization. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30:224–33. CrossRef
- Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, Cameron R, Donnalley L, Fyie K, Johnson FR. Conjoint analysis applications in health—how are studies being designed and reported? Patient. 2010;3:249–56. CrossRef
- Fagerlin A, Pignone M, Abhyankar P, Col N, Feldman-Stewart D, Gavaruzzi T, Kryworuchko J, Levin CA, Pieterse AH, Reyna V. Clarifying values: an updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:S8. CrossRef
- Coulter A, Kryworuchko J, Mullen P, Ng C, Stilwell D, van der Weijden T. Using a systematic development process. In: Volk R, Llewellyn-Thomas H (eds) Update of the international patient decision aids standard (IPDAS), 2012.
- Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC, Lijmer JG. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:W1–12. CrossRef
- Brenner A, Howard K, Lewis C, Sheridan S, Crutchfield T, Hawley S, Reuland D, Kistler C, Pignone M. Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(3):507–13.
- Carson RT, Louviere JJ, Anderson DA, Arabie P, Bunch DS, Hensher DA, Johnson RM, Kuhfeld WF, Steinberg D, Swait J. Experimental analysis of choice. Market Lett. 1994;5:351–67. CrossRef
- Ratcliffe J, Longworth L. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:139–44.
- Flitcroft KL, Irwig LM, Carter SM, Salkeld GP, Gillespie JA. Colorectal cancer screening: why immunochemical fecal occult blood tests may be the best option. BMC Gastroenterol. 2012;12:183. CrossRef
- Gregory TA, Wilson C, Duncan A, Turnbull D, Cole SR, Young G. Demographic, social cognitive and social ecological predictors of intention and participation in screening for colorectal cancer. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:38. CrossRef
- Khalid-de Bakker C, Jonkers D, Smits K, Mesters I, Masclee A, Stockbrügger R. Participation in colorectal cancer screening trials after first-time invitation: a systematic review. Endoscopy. 2011;43:1059–86. CrossRef
- Lin OS, Kozarek RA, Gluck M, Jiranek GC, Koch J, Kowdley KV, Irani S, Nguyen M, Dominitz JA. Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1349–60. CrossRef
- van Dam L, Kuipers EJ, Steyerberg EW, van Leerdam ME, de Beaufort ID. The price of autonomy: should we offer individuals a choice of colorectal cancer screening strategies? Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:e38–46. CrossRef
- Taupin DR, Corbett M. A comparison of colorectal neoplasia screening tests: a multicentre community-based study of the impact of consumer choice. Med J Aust. 2006;184:546–50.
- Courtney RJ, Paul CL, Sanson-Fisher RW, Carey ML, Macrae FA, Yoong SL. Community approaches to increasing colorectal screening uptake: a review of the methodological quality and strength of current evidence. The Cancer Council Australia; 2012, p. 27–35.
- Assessing Stated Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Critical Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer International Publishing
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia
- 2. Centre for Kidney Research, Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, Australia
- 3. Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia