Cargando…
Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment
BACKGROUND: Guidelines include several options for average‐risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that vary in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision. Thus, patient and provider preferences can help identify an appropriate screening strategy. This study elicited CRC scree...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9385595/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35315224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4678 |
_version_ | 1784769622313009152 |
---|---|
author | Heidenreich, Sebastian Finney Rutten, Lila J. Miller‐Wilson, Lesley‐Ann Jimenez‐Moreno, Cecilia Chua, Gin Nie Fisher, Deborah A. |
author_facet | Heidenreich, Sebastian Finney Rutten, Lila J. Miller‐Wilson, Lesley‐Ann Jimenez‐Moreno, Cecilia Chua, Gin Nie Fisher, Deborah A. |
author_sort | Heidenreich, Sebastian |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Guidelines include several options for average‐risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that vary in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision. Thus, patient and provider preferences can help identify an appropriate screening strategy. This study elicited CRC screening preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for CRC (IAR). METHODS: IAR aged 45–75 years and licensed physicians (primary care or gastroenterology) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants were recruited from representative access panels in the US. Within the DCE, participants traded off preferences between screening type, screening frequency, true‐positive, true‐negative, and adenoma true positive (physicians only). A mixed logit model was used to obtain predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi‐target stool DNA (mt‐sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test. RESULTS: Preferences of IAR and physicians were affected by screening precision and screening type. IAR also valued more regular screening. Physicians preferred colonoscopy (96.8%) over mt‐sDNA (2.8%; p < 0.001), FIT (0.3%; p < 0.001) and mSEPT9 blood test (0.1%; p < 0.01). IAR preferred mt‐sDNA (38.8%) over colonoscopy (32.5%; p < 0.001), FIT (19.2%; p < 0.001), and mSEPT9 blood test (9.4%; p < 0.001). IAR naïve to screening preferred non‐invasive screening (p < 0.001), while the opposite was found for those who previously underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: While physicians overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt‐sDNA being most frequently preferred on average. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve CRC screening uptake among IAR. This study used a discrete choice experiment in the US to elicit preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer screening modalities and their characteristics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9385595 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93855952022-08-19 Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment Heidenreich, Sebastian Finney Rutten, Lila J. Miller‐Wilson, Lesley‐Ann Jimenez‐Moreno, Cecilia Chua, Gin Nie Fisher, Deborah A. Cancer Med RESEARCH ARTICLES BACKGROUND: Guidelines include several options for average‐risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that vary in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision. Thus, patient and provider preferences can help identify an appropriate screening strategy. This study elicited CRC screening preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for CRC (IAR). METHODS: IAR aged 45–75 years and licensed physicians (primary care or gastroenterology) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants were recruited from representative access panels in the US. Within the DCE, participants traded off preferences between screening type, screening frequency, true‐positive, true‐negative, and adenoma true positive (physicians only). A mixed logit model was used to obtain predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi‐target stool DNA (mt‐sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test. RESULTS: Preferences of IAR and physicians were affected by screening precision and screening type. IAR also valued more regular screening. Physicians preferred colonoscopy (96.8%) over mt‐sDNA (2.8%; p < 0.001), FIT (0.3%; p < 0.001) and mSEPT9 blood test (0.1%; p < 0.01). IAR preferred mt‐sDNA (38.8%) over colonoscopy (32.5%; p < 0.001), FIT (19.2%; p < 0.001), and mSEPT9 blood test (9.4%; p < 0.001). IAR naïve to screening preferred non‐invasive screening (p < 0.001), while the opposite was found for those who previously underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: While physicians overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt‐sDNA being most frequently preferred on average. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve CRC screening uptake among IAR. This study used a discrete choice experiment in the US to elicit preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer screening modalities and their characteristics. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-03-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9385595/ /pubmed/35315224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4678 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | RESEARCH ARTICLES Heidenreich, Sebastian Finney Rutten, Lila J. Miller‐Wilson, Lesley‐Ann Jimenez‐Moreno, Cecilia Chua, Gin Nie Fisher, Deborah A. Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment |
title | Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment |
title_full | Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment |
title_fullStr | Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment |
title_full_unstemmed | Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment |
title_short | Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment |
title_sort | colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: a discrete choice experiment |
topic | RESEARCH ARTICLES |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9385595/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35315224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4678 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT heidenreichsebastian colorectalcancerscreeningpreferencesamongphysiciansandindividualsataverageriskadiscretechoiceexperiment AT finneyruttenlilaj colorectalcancerscreeningpreferencesamongphysiciansandindividualsataverageriskadiscretechoiceexperiment AT millerwilsonlesleyann colorectalcancerscreeningpreferencesamongphysiciansandindividualsataverageriskadiscretechoiceexperiment AT jimenezmorenocecilia colorectalcancerscreeningpreferencesamongphysiciansandindividualsataverageriskadiscretechoiceexperiment AT chuaginnie colorectalcancerscreeningpreferencesamongphysiciansandindividualsataverageriskadiscretechoiceexperiment AT fisherdeboraha colorectalcancerscreeningpreferencesamongphysiciansandindividualsataverageriskadiscretechoiceexperiment |