Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Techniques and Intention to Attend: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Despite the expected health benefits of colorectal cancer screening programs, participation rates remain low in countries that have implemented such a screening program. The perceived benefits and risks of the colorectal cancer screening technique are likely to influence the decision to attend the screening program. Besides the diagnostic accuracy and the risks of the screening technique, which can affect the health of the participants, additional factors, such as the burden of the test, may impact the individuals’ decisions to participate. To maximise the participation rate of a screening program for a new colorectal cancer program in the Netherlands, it is important to know the preferences of the screening population for alternative screening techniques.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore the impact of preferences for particular attributes of the screening tests on the intention to attend a colorectal cancer screening program.

Methods

We used a web-based questionnaire to elicit the preferences of the target population for a selection of colon-screening techniques. The target population consisted of Dutch men and women aged 55–75 years. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a technique for multi-criteria analysis, was used to estimate the colorectal cancer screening preferences. Respondents weighted the relevance of five criteria, i.e. the attributes of the screening techniques: sensitivity, specificity, safety, inconvenience, and frequency of the test. With regard to these criteria, preferences were estimated between four alternative screening techniques, namely, immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT), colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and computerized tomographic (CT) colonography. A five-point ordinal scale was used to estimate the respondents’ intention to attend the screening. We conducted a correlation analysis on the preferences for the screening techniques and the intention to attend.

Results

We included 167 respondents who were consistent in their judgments of the relevance of the criteria and their preferences for the screening techniques. The most preferred screening method for the national screening program was CT colonography. Sensitivity (weight = 0.26) and safety (weight = 0.26) were the strongest determinants of the overall preferences for the screening techniques. However, the screening test with the highest intention to attend was iFOBT. Inconvenience (correlation [r] = 0.69), safety (r = 0.58), and the frequency of the test (r = 0.58) were most strongly related to intention to attend.

Conclusions

The multi-criteria decision analysis revealed the attributes of the screening techniques that are most important so as to increase intention to participate in a screening program. Even though the respondents may recognize the high importance of diagnostic effectiveness in the long term, their short-term decision to attend the screening tests may be less driven by this consideration. Our analysis suggests that inconvenience, safety, and frequency of the test are the strongest technique-related determinants of the respondents’ intention to participate in colorectal screening programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(4):765–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Visser O, van Leeuwen FE. Stage-specific survival of epithelial cancers in North-Holland/Flevoland, The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(15):2321–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Brenner H. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening—an overview. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2010;24(4):439–49.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dolan JG. Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions. Health Expect. 2005;8(4):334–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Philips KA, et al. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10(5):415–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gupta S. Will test-specific adherence predict the best colorectal cancer screening strategy? Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(5):359; author reply 359–60.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ling BS, Moskowitz MA, Wachs D, et al. Attitudes toward colorectal cancer screening tests. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(12):822–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Katsumura Y, Yasunaga H, Imamura T, et al. Relationship between risk information on total colonoscopy and patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening options: analysis using the analytic hierarchy process. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:106. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-106.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Imaeda A, Bender D, Fraenkel L. What is most important to patients when deciding about colorectal screening? J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(7):688–93.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hobbs B, Meier P. Multicriteria methods for resource planning: an experimental comparison. IEEE T Power Syst. 1994;9:1811–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Saaty T. Making and validating complex decisions with the AHP/ANP. J Syst Sci Syst Eng. 2005;14:1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Whitaker R. Validation examples of the analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process. Math Comput Model. 2007;46:840–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Huizingh EKRE, Vrolijk HCJ. Extending the applicability of the analytic hierarchy process. Socio-Econ Plan. 1997;31(1):29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ishizaka A, Balkenborg D, Kaplan T. Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation. J Oper Res Soc. 2011;62:1801–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Saaty TL. Highlights and critical-points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 1994;74(3):426–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple-criteria decision-making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Health Council of the Netherlands. A national colorectal cancer screening programme. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 2009; Publication No. 2009/13E. ISBN 978-90-5549-780-5.

  19. Drossaert CH, Boer H, Seydel ER. Women’s opinions about attending for breast cancer screening: stability of cognitive determinants during three rounds of screening. Br J Health Psychol. 2005;10(Pt 1):133–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lancsara E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cragg JG. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica. 1971;829–44.

  22. Dolan JG, Boohaker E, Allison J, Imperiale TF. Patients’ preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(1):59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Kulin NA, Özdemir S, Walsh JME, Marshall JK, Van Bebber S, Phillips KA. How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? Comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ. 2009;18(12):1420–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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(4):449–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Montano D, Taplin S. A test of an expanded theory of reasoned action to predict mammography screening. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32:733–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Castiglione G, Zappa M, Grazzini G, Rubeca T, Turco P, Sani C, Ciatto S. Screening for colorectal cancer by faecal occult blood test: comparison of immunochemical tests. J Med Screen. 2000;7:35–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors received no funding for this project and declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Marjan Hummel is the main author of the paper, and supervized the project together with Lotte Steuten. Nick Mulder prepared the questionnaire and conducted the AHP analysis. The statistical analyses were conducted by Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn. Maarten IJzerman facilitated the project. All authors contributed to writing and commenting on the paper. Marjan Hummel acts as guarantor for the content of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    J. Marjan Hummel, Lotte G. M. Steuten, C. J. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Nick Mulder & Maarten J. IJzerman

Authors
  1. J. Marjan Hummel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lotte G. M. Steuten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. J. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nick Mulder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maarten J. IJzerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Marjan Hummel.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material (DOCX 115 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hummel, J.M., Steuten, L.G.M., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C.J.M. et al. Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Techniques and Intention to Attend: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11, 499–507 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0051-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0051-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation