Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment.
colonoscopy
colorectal cancer
colorectal neoplasms
early detection of cancer
patient preference
physicians
screening
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2022
08 2022
Historique:
revised:
21
02
2022
received:
26
08
2021
accepted:
27
02
2022
pubmed:
23
3
2022
medline:
20
8
2022
entrez:
22
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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). 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35315224
doi: 10.1002/cam4.4678
pmc: PMC9385595
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA
9007-49-2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3156-3167Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016 Aug;41(8):1441-4
pubmed: 27259335
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Nov 5;171(9):643-654
pubmed: 31683290
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):250-281
pubmed: 29846947
Am J Prev Med. 2006 Jul;31(1):80-9
pubmed: 16777546
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 05;9(6):e98238
pubmed: 24901436
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jan;111(1):105-14
pubmed: 26526080
Gut. 2014 Feb;63(2):317-25
pubmed: 23408352
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2020 Nov;13(11):947-958
pubmed: 32669318
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):246-249
pubmed: 29846954
Med Decis Making. 2011 Jan-Feb;31(1):93-107
pubmed: 20484090
Cancer. 2018 Apr 1;124 Suppl 7:1543-1551
pubmed: 29578602
Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):300-15
pubmed: 27325321
Gastroenterology. 2021 Mar;160(4):1097-1105
pubmed: 33307024
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015 Jul 15;9:1005-16
pubmed: 26203233
JAMA. 2016 Jun 21;315(23):2595-609
pubmed: 27305518
Health Econ Rev. 2020 Dec 09;10(1):39
pubmed: 33296066
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Feb;37(2):201-226
pubmed: 30392040
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13
pubmed: 21669364
Med Care. 2008 Sep;46(9 Suppl 1):S10-6
pubmed: 18725820
Cancer Med. 2022 Aug;11(16):3156-3167
pubmed: 35315224
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Apr 9;172(7):575-82
pubmed: 22493463
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Nov;18(12):2667-2678.e2
pubmed: 32634626
Value Health. 2019 Feb;22(2):157-160
pubmed: 30711059
N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 3;370(14):1287-97
pubmed: 24645800
Am J Gastroenterol. 2021 Mar 1;116(3):458-479
pubmed: 33657038
Cancer. 2015 Jul 1;121(13):2281-5
pubmed: 25763558
Cancer. 2012 May 15;118(10):2726-34
pubmed: 21948225
JAMA. 2016 Jun 21;315(23):2564-2575
pubmed: 27304597
BMJ Open. 2017 May 17;7(5):e014719
pubmed: 28515194
Gastroenterology. 2020 Mar;158(4):1131-1153.e5
pubmed: 32044092
JAMA. 2021 May 18;325(19):1965-1977
pubmed: 34003218
CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 May;70(3):145-164
pubmed: 32133645
Am J Prev Med. 2002 Jul;23(1):28-35
pubmed: 12093420
Am J Prev Med. 2009 Jul;37(1):8-16
pubmed: 19442479
Patient. 2018 Dec;11(6):599-611
pubmed: 29740804