Cargando…
CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS
Objectives: Differences in the process of using liver imaging technologies might be important to patients. This study aimed to investigate preferences for scanning modalities used in diagnosing focal liver lesions. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 504 adults aged ≥25 years....
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4505736/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26096701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000239 |
_version_ | 1782381586499502080 |
---|---|
author | Whitty, Jennifer Filby, Alexandra Smith, Adam B Carr, Louise M |
author_facet | Whitty, Jennifer Filby, Alexandra Smith, Adam B Carr, Louise M |
author_sort | Whitty, Jennifer |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objectives: Differences in the process of using liver imaging technologies might be important to patients. This study aimed to investigate preferences for scanning modalities used in diagnosing focal liver lesions. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 504 adults aged ≥25 years. Respondents made repeated choices between two hypothetical scans, described according to waiting time for scan and results, procedure type, the chance of minor side-effects, and whether further scanning procedures were likely to be required. Choice data were analyzed using mixed-logit models with respondent characteristics used to explain preference heterogeneity. Results: Respondents preferred shorter waiting times, the procedure to be undertaken with a handheld scanner on a couch instead of within a body scanner, no side-effects, and no follow‑up scans (p ≤ .01). The average respondent was willing to wait an additional 2 weeks for the scan if it resulted in avoiding side-effects, 1.5 weeks to avoid further procedures or to be told the results immediately, and 1 week to have the scan performed on a couch with a handheld scanner. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in the strength of preference for desirable imaging characteristics. Conclusions: An average individual belonging to a general population sub‑group most likely to require imaging to characterize focal liver lesions in the United Kingdom would prefer contrast‑enhanced ultrasound over magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. Insights into the patient perspective around differential characteristics of imaging modalities have the potential to be used to guide recommendations around the use of these technologies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4505736 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Cambridge University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45057362015-07-20 CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS Whitty, Jennifer Filby, Alexandra Smith, Adam B Carr, Louise M Int J Technol Assess Health Care Assessments Objectives: Differences in the process of using liver imaging technologies might be important to patients. This study aimed to investigate preferences for scanning modalities used in diagnosing focal liver lesions. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 504 adults aged ≥25 years. Respondents made repeated choices between two hypothetical scans, described according to waiting time for scan and results, procedure type, the chance of minor side-effects, and whether further scanning procedures were likely to be required. Choice data were analyzed using mixed-logit models with respondent characteristics used to explain preference heterogeneity. Results: Respondents preferred shorter waiting times, the procedure to be undertaken with a handheld scanner on a couch instead of within a body scanner, no side-effects, and no follow‑up scans (p ≤ .01). The average respondent was willing to wait an additional 2 weeks for the scan if it resulted in avoiding side-effects, 1.5 weeks to avoid further procedures or to be told the results immediately, and 1 week to have the scan performed on a couch with a handheld scanner. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in the strength of preference for desirable imaging characteristics. Conclusions: An average individual belonging to a general population sub‑group most likely to require imaging to characterize focal liver lesions in the United Kingdom would prefer contrast‑enhanced ultrasound over magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. Insights into the patient perspective around differential characteristics of imaging modalities have the potential to be used to guide recommendations around the use of these technologies. Cambridge University Press 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4505736/ /pubmed/26096701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000239 Text en © Cambridge University Press 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Assessments Whitty, Jennifer Filby, Alexandra Smith, Adam B Carr, Louise M CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS |
title | CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS |
title_full | CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS |
title_fullStr | CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS |
title_full_unstemmed | CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS |
title_short | CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS |
title_sort | consumer preferences for scanning modality to diagnose focal liver lesions |
topic | Assessments |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4505736/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26096701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000239 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT whittyjennifer consumerpreferencesforscanningmodalitytodiagnosefocalliverlesions AT filbyalexandra consumerpreferencesforscanningmodalitytodiagnosefocalliverlesions AT smithadamb consumerpreferencesforscanningmodalitytodiagnosefocalliverlesions AT carrlouisem consumerpreferencesforscanningmodalitytodiagnosefocalliverlesions |