Skip to main content

Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit–Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research volume 12, pages 491–501 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

The objective of the study was to investigate non-participants’ preferences for cardiovascular disease screening programme characteristics and whether non-participation can be rationally explained by differences in preferences, decision-making styles and informational needs between non-participants and participants.

Methods

We conducted a discrete choice experiment at three screening sites between June and December 2017 among 371 male non-participants and 830 male participants who were asked to trade different levels of five key programme characteristics (chance of health benefit, risk of overtreatment, risk of later regret, screening duration and screening location). Data were analysed using a multinomial mixed-logit model. Health benefit was used as a payment vehicle for estimation of marginal substitution rates.

Results

Non-participants were willing to accept that 0.127 (95% confidence interval 0.103–0.154) fewer lives would be saved to avoid overtreatment of one individual, whilst participants were willing to accept 0.085 (95% confidence interval 0.077–0.094) fewer lives saved. This translates into non-participants valuing health benefits 7.9 times higher than overtreatment. The corresponding value of participants is 11.8. Similarly, non-participants had higher requirements than participants for advanced technology and a quicker screening duration. With regard to their participation decision, 64% of the non-participants felt certain about their choice compared with 89% among participants.

Conclusions

This study shows that non-participants have different preferences than participants at screening as they express relatively more concern about overtreatment and have higher requirements for a high-tech screening programme. Non-participants also report to be more uncertain about their participation decision and more often seek additional information to the standard information provided in the invitation letter. Further studies on informational needs and effective communication strategies are warranted to ensure that non-participation is a fully informed choice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

49,54 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Robson J, Dostal I, Sheikh A, Eldridge S, Madurasinghe V, Griffiths C, et al. The NHS health check in England: an evaluation of the first 4 years. BMJ Open. 2016;13(6):e008840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Linne A, Leander K, Lindström D, Törnberg S, Hultgren R. Reasons for non-participation in population-based abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Br J Surg. 2014;101:481–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lindholt JS, Søgaard R. Population screening and intervention for vascular disease in Danish men (VIVA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390:2256–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Diederichsen AC, Rasmussen LM, Søgaard R. The Danish Cardiovascular Screening Trial (DANCAVAS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:554.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Zarrouk M, Lundqvist A, Holst J, Troëng T, Gottsäter A. Cost-effectiveness of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in combination with medical intervention in patients with small aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;51:766–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hansen TB, Lindholt JS, Søgaard R. Role of experience with preventive medication and personal risk attitude in non-attendance at triple vascular screening. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56:282–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Harte E, MacLure C, Martin A, Saunders CL, Meads C, Walter FM, et al. Reasons why people do not attend NHS health checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Br J Gen Pract. 2018;68:e28–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hansen TB, Lindholt JS, Diederichsen ACP, Bliemer MCJ, Lambrechtsen J, Steffensen FH, et al. Individual preferences on the balancing of good and harm of cardiovascular disease screening. Heart. 2019;105:761–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mansfield C, Tangka FK, Ekwueme DU, Smith JL, Guy GP Jr, Li C, et al. Stated preference for cancer screening: a systematic review of the literature, 1990–2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;13:E27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Jepson RG, Hewison J, Thompson AG, Weller D. How should we measure informed choice? The case of cancer screening. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:192–206.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care: NICE should consider using them for patient centred evaluations of technologies. BMJ. 2004;328:360–1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Grøndal N, Søgaard R, Henneberg EW, Lindholt JS. The viborg vascular (VIVA) screening trial of 65–74 year old men in the central region of Denmark: study protocol. Trials. 2010;11:67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Qvist I, Søgaard R, Lindholt JS, Lorentzen V, Hallas J, Frost L. Adherence to prescribed drugs among 65–74 year old men diagnosed with abdominal aortic aneurysm or peripheral arterial disease in a screening trial: a VIVA substudy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;57:442–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Søgaard R, Lindholt J, Gyrd-Hansen D. Insensitivity to scope in contingent valuation studies: reason for dismissal of valuations? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10:397–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Søgaard R, Lindholt J, Gyrd-Hansen D. Individual decision making in relation to participation in cardiovascular screening: a study of revealed and stated preferences. Scand J Public Health. 2013;41:43–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ. Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transp Rev. 2009;29:587–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. ChoiceMetrics. Ngene 1.1.2 user manual and reference guide. 2014. http://www.choice-metrics.com/download.html#manual.

  19. Bliemer MCJ, Rose JM. Efficiency and sample size requirements for stated choice studies. Working paper: ITLS-WP-05-08. 2005

  20. Scarpa R, Rose JM. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust J Agric Resour Econ. 2008;52:253–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. ) Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lauridsen JT, Gudex C, Brooks R, Pedersen KM. Estimating Danish EQ-5D tariffs using TTO and VAS. In: Norinder A, Pedersen K, Roos P, editors. Proceedings of the 18th plenary meeting of the EuroQol Group. IHE, The Swedish Institute for Health Economics; 2002: pp. 257–92.

  22. Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res. 1993;30:305–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bliemer MCJ, Rose JM. Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 2013;58:199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Vernooij RWM, Lytvyn L, Hector Pardo-Hernandez H, Albarqouni L, Canelo-Aybar C, Campbell K, et al. Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e025470.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kløjgaard ME, Manniche C, Pedersen LB, Bech M, Søgaard R. Patient preferences for treatment of low back pain: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2014;17:390–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mansfield C, Ekwueme DU, Tangka FKL, Brown DS, Smith JL, Guy GP Jr, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: preferences, past behavior, and future intentions. Patient. 2018;11:599–611.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. de Bekker-Grob EW, Rose JM, Donkers B, Essink-Bot ML, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, et al. Men’s preferences for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:533–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Van den Bruel A, Jones C, Yang Y, Oke J, Hewitson P, et al. People’s willingness to accept overdetection in cancer screening: population survey. BMJ. 2015;350:h980.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Albarqouni L, Doust J, Glasziou P. Patient preferences for cardiovascular preventive medication: a systematic review. Heart. 2017;103:1578–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cheong AT, Liew SM, Khoo EM, Mohd Zaidi NF, Chinna K. Are interventions to increase the uptake of screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Fam Pract. 2017;18:4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Teo CH, Ling CJ, Ng CJ. Improving health screening uptake in men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2018;54:133–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sallis A, Bunten A, Bonus A, James A, Chadborn T, Berry D. The effectiveness of an enhanced invitation letter on uptake of National Health Service health checks in primary care: a pragmatic quasi-randomised controlled trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17:35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Teo CH, Ng CJ, Booth A, White A. Barriers and facilitators to health screening in men: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2016;165:168–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ghanouni A, Renzi C, Meisel SF, Waller J. Common methods of measuring ‘informed choice’ in screening participation: challenges and future directions. Prev Med Rep. 2016;4:601–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. General Medical Council. Seeking patients’ consent: the ethical considerations. London: GMC; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Marteau TM, Kinmonth AL. Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for individual informed choice? BMJ. 2002;325:78–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:274–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Edwards AG, Naik G, Ahmed H, Elwyn GJ, Pickles T, Hood K, et al. Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:CD001865.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bonner C, Patel P, Fajardo MA, Zhuang R, Trevena L. Online decision aids for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: systematic search, evaluation of quality and suitability for low health literacy patients. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e025173.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Magnani JW, Mujahid MS, Aronow HD, Cené CW, Dickson VV, Havranek E, et al. Health literacy and cardiovascular disease: fundamental relevance to primary and secondary prevention: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018;138:e48–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Greenwald ZR, El-Zein M, Bouten S, Ensha H, Vazquez FL, Franco EL. Mobile screening units for the early detection of cancer: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2017;26:1679–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health: a checklist. A report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14:403–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nielsen AD, Videbech P, Gerke O, Petersen H, Jensen JM, Sand NP, et al. Population screening for coronary artery calcification does not increase mental distress and the use of psychoactive medication. J Thorac Imaging. 2012;27:202–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kvist TV, Lindholt JS, Rasmussen LM, Søgaard R, Lambrechtsen J, Steffensen FH, et al. The DanCavas pilot study of multifaceted screening for subclinical cardiovascular disease in men and women aged 65–74 years. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;53:123–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the screening invitees who responded to the questionnaire and the staff for the distribution of the survey at the screening sites.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, Zealand University Hospital, Sygehusvej 10, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark

    Tina Birgitte Hansen

  2. Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Tina Birgitte Hansen

  3. Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

    Jes Sanddal Lindholt

  4. Elitary Research Unit of Personalized Medicine in Arterial Disease (CIMA), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

    Jes Sanddal Lindholt & Axel Diederichsen

  5. Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

    Axel Diederichsen

  6. Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Rikke Søgaard

  7. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Rikke Søgaard

Authors
  1. Tina Birgitte Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jes Sanddal Lindholt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Axel Diederichsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rikke Søgaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TBH and RS conceived the idea for the study. All authors contributed to the design and planning of the study. TBH and RS performed the statistical analyses. TBH wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors have revised the manuscript critically. All authors have given their final approval of the version to be published. TBH and RS are responsible for the overall content.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tina Birgitte Hansen.

Ethics declarations

Funding

The randomised trial from which the respondents in the current study were recruited received financial support from the South Region of Denmark, the Danish Research Council, the Danish Heart Foundation, the Helse Foundation, Odense University Hospital and the Elitary Research Centre of Individualised Medicine in Arterial Disease. For the discrete choice experiment study, financial support has been granted by the Region Zealand (RSSF2017000614).

Conflict of interest

Tina Birgitte Hansen, Jes Sanddal Lindholt, Axel Diederichsen and Rikke Søgaard have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (REG-003-2017) and complies with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 599 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hansen, T.B., Lindholt, J.S., Diederichsen, A. et al. Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit–Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment. Patient 12, 491–501 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00364-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00364-z