Older adults' preferences for colorectal cancer-screening test attributes and test choice

Supporting community translation of lung cancer screening: A web-based decision aid to support informed decision making

BACKGROUND

Results of the National Lung Screening Trial create the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but community translation of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been challenging. Subsequent policies have endorsed informed and shared decision-making and using decision support tools to support person-centered choices about screening to facilitate implementation. This study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of LuCaS CHOICES, a web-based decision aid to support delivery of accurate information, facilitate communication skill development, and clarify personal preferences regarding LCS-a key component of high-quality LCS implementation.

METHODS

Using a parallel groups randomized trial, the study investigated the feasibility and acceptability of LuCaS CHOICES decision aid in comparison to the National Cancer Institute's Lung Cancer Screening website. Three waves of self-report data were collected: baseline (PRE), 2 weeks post-baseline (POST), and 4 months post-baseline (FOL). Participant accrual and intervention access data were also collected to evaluate methodological feasibility for conducting a larger subsequent trial.

RESULTS

Participants assigned to LuCaS CHOICES (n = 25) and the NCI website (n = 25) interventions reported similar, favorable levels of intervention feasibility and acceptability that exceeded a priori criteria. Methodological feasibility was partially supported for the proposed accrual and retention goals, but accrual was slower than hypothesized, and documented exposure to the digital interventions was suboptimal per a priori standards.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, both interventions demonstrated intervention feasibility and acceptability. In addition, the proposed methods achieved desired levels of retention and overall data collection. Modifications to enhance intervention engagement should be explored prior to further testing. Subsequent steps involve conducting a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of LuCaS CHOICES on informed decision making and preference-concordant screening behavior, supporting LCS translation into community settings.

What Breast Cancer Screening Program do Rural Women Prefer? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Jiangsu, China

BACKGROUND

Chinese rural women aged 35-64 years are encouraged to complete breast cancer screening (BCS) free of charge. However, it is challenging to reach a satisfying BCS uptake rate. In this study, rural women's preferences and preferences heterogeneity were measured for the development of strategies to enhance participation in BCS.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey with a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted via convenience sampling via face-to-face interviews in Jiangsu, China. Six DCE attributes were identified through a systematic literature review; our previous study of Chinese rural women's BCS intentions; a qualitative work involving in-depth interviews with rural women (n = 13), medical staff (n = 4), and health care managers (n = 2); and knowledge of realistic and actionable policy. The D-efficient design was generated using Ngene 1.3.0. A mixed logit model (MXL) in Stata 18.0 was used to estimate the main effect of attribute levels on rural women's preferences. The relative importance and willingness to utilize BCS services (WTU) were also estimated. The heterogeneous preferences were analyzed by a latent class model (LCM). Sociodemographic status was used to predict the characteristics of class membership. The WTU for different classes was also calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 451 rural women, aged 35-64 years, were recruited. The MXL results revealed that the screening interval (SI) was the most important attribute for rural women with regard to utilizing BCS services, followed by the level of screening, the attitude of medical staff, ways to get knowledge and information, people who recommend screening, and time spent on screening (TSS). Rural women preferred a BCS service with a shorter TSS; access to knowledge and information through multiple approaches; a shorter SI; a recommendation from medical staff or workers from the village or community, and others; the enthusiasm of medical staff; and medical staff with longer tenures in the field. Two classes named "process driven" and "efficiency driven" were identified by the preference heterogeneity analysis of the LCM.

CONCLUSION

There is a higher uptake of breast cancer screening when services are tailored to women's preferences. The screening interval was the most important attribute for rural women in China with a preference for a yearly screening interval versus longer intervals.

Attributes in stated preference elicitation studies on colorectal cancer screening and their relative importance for decision-making among screenees: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The SIGMO study (Sigmoidoscopy as an evidence-based colorectal cancer screening test - a possible option?) examines screening eligible populations' preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in Germany using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Attribute identification and selection are essential for the construction of choice tasks and should be evidence-based. As a part of the SIGMO study this systematic review provides an overview of attributes included in studies eliciting stated preferences for CRC screening tests and their relative importance for decision-making.

METHODS

Systematic search (November 2021) for English-language studies published since January 2000 in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate Edition, LIVIVO and PsycINFO. DCEs and conjoint analysis ranking or rating tasks on screening eligible populations' preferences for stool testing, sigmoidoscopy, and/or colonoscopy were included. Attributes were extracted and their relative importance was calculated and ranked. Risk of bias (RoB) of included studies was assessed using a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Study selection and RoB rating were carried out independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another one.

RESULTS

A total of 23 publications on 22 studies were included. Overall RoB was rated as serious/critical for 21 studies and as moderate for 2 studies. Main reasons for high RoB were non-random sampling, low response rates, lack of non-responder analyses, and, to a lesser extent, weaknesses in the measurement instrument and data analysis. Extracted attributes (n = 120) referred to procedure-related characteristics (n = 42; 35%), structural characteristics of health care (n = 24; 20%), test characteristics (n = 23; 19%), harms (n = 16; 13%), benefits (n = 13; 11%), and level of evidence (n = 2; 2%). Most important attributes were reduction in CRC mortality (and incidence) (n = 7), test sensitivity (n = 7), out-of-pocket costs (n = 4), procedure (n = 3), and frequency (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Health preference studies on CRC were found to have a high RoB. The composition of choice tasks revealed a lack of attributes on patient-important outcomes (like incidence reduction), while attributes not considered relevant for individual screening decisions (like sensitivity) were frequently used. Future studies eliciting stated preferences in cancer screening should apply the principles of informed decision-making in attribute identification and selection.

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 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.

Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Evidence from discrete choice experiments can be used to enrich understanding of preferences, inform the (re)design of screening programmes and/or improve communication within public campaigns about the benefits and harms of screening. However, reviews of screening discrete choice experiments highlight significant discrepancies between stated choices and real choices, particularly regarding willingness to undergo cancer screening. The identification and selection of attributes and associated levels is a fundamental component of designing a discrete choice experiment. Misspecification or misinterpretation of attributes may lead to non-compensatory behaviours, attribute non-attendance and responses that lack external validity.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to synthesise evidence on attribute development, alongside an in-depth review of included attributes and methodological challenges, to provide a resource for researchers undertaking future studies in cancer screening.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify discrete choice experiments estimating preferences towards cancer screening, dated between 1990 and December 2020. Data were synthesised narratively. In-depth analysis of attributes led to classification into four categories: test specific, service delivery, outcomes and monetary. Attribute significance and relative importance were also analysed. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research conjoint analysis checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were included at full text. They covered a range of cancer sites: over half (26/49) examined colorectal screening. Most studies elicited general public preferences (34/49). In total, 280 attributes were included, 90% (252/280) of which were significant. Overall, test sensitivity and mortality reduction were most frequently found to be the most important to respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in reporting the identification, selection and construction of attributes used within cancer screening discrete choice experiments are needed. This review also highlights the importance of considering the complexity of choice tasks when considering risk information or compound attributes. Patient and public involvement and stakeholder engagement are recommended to optimise understanding of unavoidably complex choice tasks throughout the design process. To ensure quality and maximise comparability across studies, further research is needed to develop a risk-of-bias measure for discrete choice experiments.

Initial validation of a self-report questionnaire based on the Theoretical Domains Framework: determinants of clinician adoption of a novel colorectal cancer screening strategy

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for average risk adults age 45 and older continues to be underutilized in the USA. One factor consistently associated with CRC screening completion is clinician recommendation. Understanding the barriers and facilitators of clinical adoption of emerging CRC screening strategies is important in developing effective intervention strategies to improve CRC screening rates. We aimed to develop a questionnaire based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to assess determinants of clinical adoption of novel CRC screening strategies, using the multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA; Cologuard®) as an example, and test the psychometric properties of this questionnaire on a sample of US clinicians.

METHODS

A web survey was administered between November and December 2019 to a national panel of clinicians including primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) to assess 10 TDF constructs with 55 items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine whether the a priori domain structure was supported by the data. Discriminant validity of domains was tested with Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT). Internal consistency for each scale was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Criterion validity was assessed with self-reported mt-sDNA use and mt-sDNA recommendation as the outcomes.

RESULTS

Complete surveys were received from 814 PCCs and 159 GIs (completion rate, 24.7% of 3299 PCCs and 29.6% of 538 GIs). Providers were excluded from analysis if they indicated not recommending CRC screening to average-risk patients (final N = 973). The final questionnaire consisted of 38 items covering 5 domains: (1) knowledge; (2) skills; (3) identity and social influence; (4) optimism, beliefs about consequences, and intentions; and (5) environmental context and resources. CFA results confirmed a reasonable fit (CFI = 0.948, SRMR = 0.057, RMSEA = 0.080). The domains showed sufficient discriminant validity (HTMT < 0.85), good internal consistency (McDonald's omega > 0.76), and successfully differentiated providers who reported they had ordered mt-sDNA from those who never ordered mt-sDNA and differentiated providers who reported routinely recommending mt-sDNA from those who reported not recommending mt-sDNA.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide initial evidence for the validity and internal consistency of this TDF-based questionnaire in measuring potential determinants of mt-sDNA adoption for average-risk CRC screening. Further investigation of validity and reliability is needed when adapting this questionnaire to other novel CRC screening strategy contexts.

The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment

BACKGROUND

There is considerable heterogeneity in individuals' risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals.

METHOD

We conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no).

RESULTS

Of the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Most people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.

Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Despite the recognised importance of participant understanding for valid and reliable discrete choice experiment (DCE) results, there has been limited assessment of whether, and how, people understand DCEs, and how 'understanding' is conceptualised in DCEs applied to a health context.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to identify how participant understanding is conceptualised in the DCE literature in a health context. Our research questions addressed how participant understanding is defined, measured, and used.

METHODS

Searches were conducted (June 2019) in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Econlit databases, as well as hand searching. Search terms were based on previous DCE systematic reviews, with additional understanding keywords used in a proximity-based search strategy. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed journal articles in the field of health, related to DCE or best-worst scaling type 3 (BWS3) studies, and reporting some consideration or assessment of participant understanding. A descriptive analytical approach was used to chart relevant data from each study, including publication year, country, clinical area, subject group, sample size, study design, numbers of attributes, levels and choice sets, definition of understanding, how understanding was tested, results of the understanding tests, and how the information about understanding was used. Each study was categorised based on how understanding was conceptualised and used within the study.

RESULTS

Of 306 potentially eligible articles identified, 31 were excluded based on titles and abstracts, and 200 were excluded on full-text review, resulting in 75 included studies. Three categories of study were identified: applied DCEs (n = 52), pretesting studies (n = 7) and studies of understanding (n = 16). Typically, understanding was defined in relation to either the choice context, such as attribute terminology, or the concept of choosing. Very few studies considered respondents' engagement as a component of understanding. Understanding was measured primarily through qualitative pretesting, rationality or validity tests included in the survey, and participant self-report, however reporting and use of the results of these methods was inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Those conducting or using health DCEs should carefully select, justify, and report the measurement and potential impact of participant understanding in their specific choice context. There remains scope for research into the different components of participant understanding, particularly related to engagement, the impact of participant understanding on DCE validity and reliability, the best measures of understanding, and methods to maximise participant understanding.

What Factors Influence Non-Participation Most in Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background and Objective

Non-participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening needs to be decreased to achieve its full potential as a public health strategy. To facilitate successful implementation of CRC screening towards unscreened individuals, this study aimed to quantify the impact of screening and individual characteristics on non-participation in CRC screening.

Methods

An online discrete choice experiment partly based on qualitative research was used among 406 representatives of the Dutch general population aged 55–75 years. In the discrete choice experiment, respondents were offered a series of choices between CRC screening scenarios that differed on five characteristics: effectiveness of the faecal immunochemical screening test, risk of a false-negative outcome, test frequency, waiting time for faecal immunochemical screening test results and waiting time for a colonoscopy follow-up test. The discrete choice experiment data were analysed in a systematic manner using random-utility-maximisation choice processes with scale and/or preference heterogeneity (based on 15 individual characteristics) and/or random intercepts.

Results

Screening characteristics proved to influence non-participation in CRC screening (21.7–28.0% non-participation rate), but an individual’s characteristics had an even higher impact on CRC screening non-participation (8.4–75.5% non-participation rate); particularly the individual’s attitude towards CRC screening followed by whether the individual had participated in a cancer screening programme before, the decision style of the individual and the educational level of the individual. Our findings provided a high degree of confidence in the internal–external validity.

Conclusions

This study showed that although screening characteristics proved to influence non-participation in CRC screening, a respondent’s characteristics had a much higher impact on CRC screening non-participation. Policy makers and physicians can use our study insights to improve and tailor their communication plans regarding (CRC) screening for unscreened individuals.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?"

CURRENT PRACTICE

Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations.

THE EVIDENCE

Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future

OBJECTIVES

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated.

RESULTS

Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.

Individualized Colorectal Cancer Screening Discussions Between Older Adults and Their Primary Care Providers: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction. Discussions of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with older adults should be individualized to maximize appropriate screening. Our aim was to describe CRC screening discussions and explore their associations with patient characteristics and screening intentions. Methods. Cross-sectional survey of 422 primary care patients aged ≥70 years and eligible for CRC screening, including open-ended questions about CRC screening discussions. Primary outcomes were the frequency with which CRC screening discussions occurred, who had those discussions, and the domains that emerged from thematic analysis of participants' brief reports of their discussions. We also examined the associations between 1) patient characteristics and whether a screening discussion occurred and 2) the domains discussed and what screening decisions were made. Results. Of 422 participants, 209 reported having discussions and 201 responded to open-ended questions about CRC discussions. In a regression analysis, several factors were associated with increased odds of having a discussion: participants' preference to pursue screening (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3, 3.9), good health (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.7, 4.8), and receipt of the decision aid (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4, 3.2). Our thematic analysis identified five domains related to discussion content and three related to discussion process. The CRC screening-related information domain was the most commonly discussed content domain, and the timing/frequency domain was associated with increased odds of intent to pursue screening. Decision-making role, the most commonly discussed process domain, was associated with increased odds of the intent to forgo CRC screening. Conclusions and Relevance. CRC screening discussions varied by type of participant and content. Future work is needed to determine if interventions focused on specific domains alters the appropriateness of participants' colorectal cancer screening intentions.

Getting patients in the door: medical appointment reminder preferences

PURPOSE

Between 23% and 34% of outpatient appointments are missed annually. Patients who frequently miss medical appointments have poorer health outcomes and are less likely to use preventive health care services. Missed appointments result in unnecessary costs and organizational inefficiencies. Appointment reminders may help reduce missed appointments; particular types may be more effective than other types. We used a survey with a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to learn why individuals miss appointments and to assess appointment reminder preferences.

METHODS

We enrolled a national sample of adults from an online survey panel to complete demographic and appointment habit questions as well as a 16-task DCE designed in Sawtooth Software's Discover tool. We assessed preferences for four reminder attributes - initial reminder type, arrival of initial reminder, reminder content, and number of reminders. We derived utilities and importance scores.

RESULTS

We surveyed 251 adults nationally, with a mean age of 43 (range 18-83) years: 51% female, 84% White, and 8% African American. Twenty-three percent of individuals missed one or more appointments in the past 12 months. Two primary reasons given for missing an appointment include transportation problems (28%) and forgetfulness (26%). Participants indicated the initial reminder type (21%) was the most important attribute, followed by the number of reminders (10%). Overall, individuals indicated a preference for a single reminder, arriving via email, phone call, or text message, delivered less than 2 weeks prior to an appointment. Preferences for reminder content were less clear.

CONCLUSION

The number of missed appointments and reasons for missing appointments are consistent with prior research. Patient-centered appointment reminders may improve appointment attendance by addressing some of the reasons individuals report missing appointments and by meeting patients' needs. Future research is necessary to determine if preferred reminders used in practice will result in improved appointment attendance in clinical settings.

Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990-2013

Introduction

Stated-preference methods provide a systematic approach to quantitatively assess the relative preferences for features of cancer screening tests. We reviewed stated-preference studies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening to identify the types of attributes included, the use of questions to assess uptake, and whether gaps exist in these areas. The goal of our review is to inform research on the design and promotion of public health programs to increase cancer screening.

Methods

Using the PubMed and EconLit databases, we identified studies published in English from January 1990 through July 2013 that measured preferences for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test attributes using conjoint analysis or a discrete-choice experiment. We extracted data on study characteristics and results. We categorized studies by whether attributes evaluated included screening test, health care delivery characteristics, or both.

Results

Twenty-two studies met the search criteria. Colorectal cancer was the most commonly studied cancer of the 3. Fifteen studies examined only screening test attributes (efficacy, process, test characteristics, and cost). Two studies included only health care delivery attributes (information provided, staff characteristics, waiting time, and distance to facility). Five studies examined both screening test and health care delivery attributes. Overall, cancer screening test attributes had a significant effect on a patient’s selection of a cancer screening test, and health care delivery attributes had mixed effects on choice.

Conclusion

A growing number of studies examine preferences for cancer screening tests. These studies consistently find that screening test attributes, such as efficacy, process, and cost, are significant determinants of choice. Fewer studies have examined the effect of health care delivery attributes on choice, and the results from these studies are mixed. There is a need for additional studies on the barriers to cancer screening uptake, including health care delivery attributes, and the effect of education materials on preferences.