Evaluating preferences for colorectal cancer screening in individuals under age 50 using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Colorectal cancer
Medical decision making
Multicriteria decision analysis
Preferences
Screening
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jul 2021
29 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
18
09
2020
accepted:
28
06
2021
entrez:
30
7
2021
pubmed:
31
7
2021
medline:
3
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their recommendation, stating that individuals ages 45-49 should initiate screening for colorectal cancer. Since several screening strategies are recommended, making a shared decision involves including an individual's preferences. Few studies have included individuals under age 50. In this study, we use a multicriteria decision analysis technique called the Analytic Hierarchy Process to explore preferences for screening strategies and evaluate whether preferences vary by age. Participants evaluated a hierarchy with 3 decision alternatives (colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography), 3 criteria (test effectiveness, the screening plan, and features of the test) and 7 sub-criteria. We used the linear fit method to calculate consistency ratios and the eigenvector method for group preferences. We conducted sensitivity analysis to assess whether results are robust to change and tested differences in preferences by participant variables using chi-square and analysis of variance. Of the 579 individuals surveyed, 556 (96%) provided complete responses to the AHP portion of the survey. Of these, 247 participants gave responses consistent enough (CR < 0.18) to be included in the final analysis. Participants that were either white or have lower health literacy were more likely to be excluded due to inconsistency. Colonoscopy was the preferred strategy in those < 50 and fecal immunochemical test was preferred by those over age 50 (p = 0.002). These results were consistent when we restricted analysis to individuals ages 45-55 (p = 0.011). Participants rated test effectiveness as the most important criteria for making their decision (weight = 0.555). Sensitivity analysis showed our results were robust to shifts in criteria and sub-criteria weights. We reveal potential differences in preferences for screening strategies by age that could influence the adoption of screening programs to include individuals under age 50. Researchers and practitioners should consider at-home interventions using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to assist with the formulation of preferences that are key to shared decision-making. The costs associated with different preferences for screening strategies should be explored further if limited resources must be allocated to screen individuals ages 45-49.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their recommendation, stating that individuals ages 45-49 should initiate screening for colorectal cancer. Since several screening strategies are recommended, making a shared decision involves including an individual's preferences. Few studies have included individuals under age 50. In this study, we use a multicriteria decision analysis technique called the Analytic Hierarchy Process to explore preferences for screening strategies and evaluate whether preferences vary by age.
METHODS
METHODS
Participants evaluated a hierarchy with 3 decision alternatives (colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography), 3 criteria (test effectiveness, the screening plan, and features of the test) and 7 sub-criteria. We used the linear fit method to calculate consistency ratios and the eigenvector method for group preferences. We conducted sensitivity analysis to assess whether results are robust to change and tested differences in preferences by participant variables using chi-square and analysis of variance.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 579 individuals surveyed, 556 (96%) provided complete responses to the AHP portion of the survey. Of these, 247 participants gave responses consistent enough (CR < 0.18) to be included in the final analysis. Participants that were either white or have lower health literacy were more likely to be excluded due to inconsistency. Colonoscopy was the preferred strategy in those < 50 and fecal immunochemical test was preferred by those over age 50 (p = 0.002). These results were consistent when we restricted analysis to individuals ages 45-55 (p = 0.011). Participants rated test effectiveness as the most important criteria for making their decision (weight = 0.555). Sensitivity analysis showed our results were robust to shifts in criteria and sub-criteria weights.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We reveal potential differences in preferences for screening strategies by age that could influence the adoption of screening programs to include individuals under age 50. Researchers and practitioners should consider at-home interventions using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to assist with the formulation of preferences that are key to shared decision-making. The costs associated with different preferences for screening strategies should be explored further if limited resources must be allocated to screen individuals ages 45-49.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34325701
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06705-9
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-06705-9
pmc: PMC8320058
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
754Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR, et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(4):250–81. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21457 .
doi: 10.3322/caac.21457
pubmed: 29846947
pmcid: 29846947
Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer. 2010;116(3):544–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24760 .
doi: 10.1002/cncr.24760
pubmed: 19998273
pmcid: 19998273
Araghi M, Soerjomataram I, Bardot A, et al. Changes in colorectal cancer incidence in seven high-income countries: a population-based study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4(7):511–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30147-5 .
doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30147-5
pubmed: 31105047
pmcid: 31105047
>Siegel RL, Miller KD, Sauer AG, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(3):145–64. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21601 .
Siegel RL, Fedewa SA, Anderson WF, et al. Colorectal Cancer Incidence Patterns in the United States, 1974–2013. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(8). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw322 .
US Preventive Services Task Force, Davidson KW, Barry MJ, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2021;325(19):1965. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.6238 .
doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.6238
Piscitello A, Edwards DK. Estimating the Screening-Eligible Population Size, aged 45 to 74, at Average Risk to Develop Colorectal Cancer in the United States. Cancer Prev Res. 2020;13(5):443–8. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-19-0527 .
Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, et al. Screening for colorectal Cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2576. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.3332 .
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.3332
pubmed: 27305422
pmcid: 27305422
Preventive Services Task Force US, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, et al. Screening for colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564–75. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.5989 .
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.5989
Lee SJ, O’Leary MC, Umble KE, Wheeler SB. Eliciting vulnerable patients’ preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:2267–82. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S156552 .
doi: 10.2147/PPA.S156552
pubmed: 30464417
pmcid: 30464417
Wortley S, Wong G, Kieu A, Howard K. Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2014;7(3):271–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0054-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0054-3
pubmed: 24652475
pmcid: 24652475
Ghanouni A, Smith SG, Halligan S, et al. Public preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests: a review of conjoint analysis studies. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013;10(4):489–99. https://doi.org/10.1586/17434440.2013.811867 .
doi: 10.1586/17434440.2013.811867
pubmed: 23895076
pmcid: 23895076
Marshall D, McGregor SE, Currie G. Measuring preferences for colorectal Cancer screening: what are the implications for moving forward? The Patient. 2010;3(2):79–89. https://doi.org/10.2165/11532250-000000000-00000 .
doi: 10.2165/11532250-000000000-00000
pubmed: 22273359
pmcid: 22273359
Harker PT. The art and science of decision making: the analytic hierarchy process. In: Golden BL, Wasil EA, Harker PT, editors. The analytic hierarchy process: applications and studies. Springer: Berlin Heidelberg; 1989. p. 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-50244-6_2 .
doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-50244-6_2
Schmidt K, Aumann I, Hollander I, et al. Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15:112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0234-7 .
Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;189(1):194–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.001
Dolan JG. Are patients capable of using the analytic hierarchy process and willing to use it to help make clinical decisions? Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):76–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9501500111 .
doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500111
Dolan JG, Boohaker E, Allison J, Imperiale TF. Patients’ preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(1):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X12453502 .
doi: 10.1177/0272989X12453502
Xu Y, Levy BT, Daly JM, et al. Comparison of patient preferences for fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy using the analytic hierarchy process. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:175. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0841-0 .
Hummel JM, Steuten LGM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CJM, Mulder N, Ijzerman MJ. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening techniques and intention to attend: a multi-criteria decision analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy Auckl. 2013;11(5):499–507.
doi: 10.1007/s40258-013-0051-z
Amazon. Amazon Mechanical Turk. https://www.mturk.com/ . Accessed 15 Mar 2019.
Casler K, Bickel L, Hackett E. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(6):2156–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009 .
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
Qualtrics. Provo: Qualtrics; 2005. https://www.qualtrics.com .
Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med. 2004;36(8):588–94.
pubmed: 15343421
pmcid: 15343421
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(5):672–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07304449 .
doi: 10.1177/0272989X07304449
Saaty TL. Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary. Eur J Oper Res. 2003;145(1):85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8 .
doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8
Alonso JA, Lamata MT. Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: a new approach. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst. 2006;14(04):445–59. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488506004114 .
doi: 10.1142/S0218488506004114
IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Version 25.0. Armonk: IBM; 2017.
Definitive Pro™. Version 3.2. Reston: Definitive Business Solutions, Inc.; 2016. https://www.definitiveinc.com/definitive-pro/ .
Jones RM, Devers KJ, Kuzel AJ, Woolf SH. Patient-reported barriers to colorectal Cancer screening. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(5):508–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.021 .
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.021
pubmed: 20409499
pmcid: 20409499
DeBourcy AC, Lichtenberger S, Felton S, Butterfield KT, Ahnen DJ, Denberg TD. Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(2):169–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0480-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0480-1
pubmed: 18157581
pmcid: 18157581
Cho Y-H, Kim DH, Cha JM, et al. Patients’ preferences for primary colorectal cancer screening: a survey of the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea. Gut Liver. 2017;11(6):821–7. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17025 .
doi: 10.5009/gnl17025
pubmed: 28750489
pmcid: 28750489
Calderwood AH, Wasan SK, Heeren TC, Schroy PC. Patient and provider preferences for colorectal Cancer screening: how does CT Colonography compare to other modalities? Int J Cancer Prev. 2011;4(4):307–38.
Schroy PC, Emmons K, Peters E, et al. The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision-making for colorectal Cancer screening: a randomized trial (running head: SDM for CRC screening). Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(1):93–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10369007 .
doi: 10.1177/0272989X10369007
Ruffin MT, Creswell JW, Jimbo M, Fetters MD. Factors influencing choices for colorectal Cancer screening among previously unscreened African and Caucasian Americans: findings from a triangulation mixed methods investigation. J Community Health. 2009;34(2):79–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-008-9133-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s10900-008-9133-5
pubmed: 19082695
pmcid: 19082695
Griffith JM, Lewis CL, Brenner AR, Pignone MP. The effect of offering different numbers of colorectal cancer screening test options in a decision aid: a pilot randomized trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-8-4 .
doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-8-4
pubmed: 18218084
pmcid: 18218084
Pignone M, Bucholtz D, Harris R. Patient preferences for Colon Cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(7):432–7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00018.x .
doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00018.x
pubmed: 10417601
pmcid: 10417601
Bretthauer M, Kalager M, Weinberg DS. From colorectal cancer screening guidelines to headlines: beware! Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(6):405. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-1720 .
doi: 10.7326/M18-1720
pubmed: 29987330
pmcid: 29987330
Liang PS, Allison J, Ladabaum U, et al. Potential intended and unintended consequences of recommending initiation of colorectal Cancer screening at age 45 years. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(4):950–4. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.08.019 .
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.08.019
pubmed: 30138614
pmcid: 30138614
Ladabaum U, Mannalithara A, Meester RGS, Gupta S, Schoen RE. Cost-effectiveness and National effects of initiating colorectal cancer screening for average-risk persons at age 45 years instead of 50 years. Gastroenterology. 2019;157(1):137–48.
Christy SM, Rawl SM. Shared decision-making about colorectal cancer screening: a conceptual framework to guide research. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91(3):310–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.01.015 .
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.01.015
pubmed: 23419327
pmcid: 23419327
Ma T, Sharifi H, Chattopadhyay D. Virtual Humans in Health-Related Interventions: A Meta-Analysis. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI EA ‘19. Association for Computing Machinery; 2019. p. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312853 .
doi: 10.1145/3290607.3312853
Apergi LA, Bjarnadottir MV, Baras JS, et al. Voice Interface technology adoption by patients with heart failure: pilot comparison study. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2021;9(4):e24646. https://doi.org/10.2196/24646 .
doi: 10.2196/24646
pubmed: 33792556
pmcid: 33792556