Informed decision making changes test preferences for colorectal cancer screening in a diverse population
- PMID: 20212301
- PMCID: PMC2834721
- DOI: 10.1370/afm.1054
Informed decision making changes test preferences for colorectal cancer screening in a diverse population
Abstract
Purpose: We wanted to better understand patient preferences and decision making about options for colorectal cancer screening. Consistency in patient preferences could improve patient-clinician communication about tests by simplifying and focusing discussions.
Methods: In a cross-sectional sample of primary care patients, cognitive ranking tasks were used to estimate patient preferences for fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema before and after consideration of 13 test attributes, such as accuracy and scientific evidence. Patients also ranked the 13 test attributes and attribute descriptions in terms of importance. Friedman's nonparametric test was used to measure overall discrimination among items, and the average Pearson correlation coefficient (r) among participants was used to measure the degree of consistency in choices.
Results: Participants (n = 168) averaged 62.1 years of age, and 64.3% were of minority racial ethnicity. For test-specific attributes, preferences were for high test accuracy (r = 0.63, P < .001), amount of colon examined (r = 0.64, P < .001), strong scientific evidence for efficacy (r = 0.59, P < .001), minimum discomfort (r = 0.50, P < .001), and low risk of complications (r = 0.38, P < .001). When all 13 attributes were considered together, agreement dropped (r = 0.13, P < .001), but attributes considered most important for decision making were test accuracy, scientific evidence for efficacy, amount of colon examined, and need for sedation. Test preferences showed moderate agreement (r = 0.20, P < .001), and choices were fairly consistent before and after exposure to test-specific attributes (kappa = 0.17, P = .007). Initially the modal choice was fecal occult blood testing (59%); however, after exposure to test specific attributes, the modal choice was colonoscopy (54%).
Conclusion: Participants were clear about the attributes that they prefer, but no single test has those attributes. Preferences were varied across participants and were not predictable; clinicians should discuss the full range of recommended tests for colorectal cancer with all patients.
Similar articles
-
Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients.Med Care. 2008 Sep;46(9 Suppl 1):S10-6. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817d932e. Med Care. 2008. PMID: 18725820
-
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 Apr;34(2):79-89. doi: 10.1007/s10900-008-9133-5. J Community Health. 2009. PMID: 19082695 Free PMC article.
-
Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening.J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Feb;23(2):169-74. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0480-1. Epub 2007 Dec 21. J Gen Intern Med. 2008. PMID: 18157581 Free PMC article.
-
Attributes in stated preference elicitation studies on colorectal cancer screening and their relative importance for decision-making among screenees: a systematic review.Health Econ Rev. 2022 Sep 22;12(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s13561-022-00394-8. Health Econ Rev. 2022. PMID: 36136248 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Colorectal cancer screening: scientific review.JAMA. 2003 Mar 12;289(10):1288-96. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.10.1288. JAMA. 2003. PMID: 12633191 Review.
Cited by
-
Comparative effectiveness of five fecal immunochemical tests using colonoscopy as the gold standard: study protocol.Contemp Clin Trials. 2021 Jul;106:106430. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2021.106430. Epub 2021 May 8. Contemp Clin Trials. 2021. PMID: 33974994 Free PMC article.
-
Assessing the implementation of a patient navigation intervention for colonoscopy screening.BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Nov 6;19(1):803. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4601-4. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019. PMID: 31694642 Free PMC article.
-
Questionnaire Validation of Colorectal Cancer Literacy Scale among Thai People in Northeastern Thailand.Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019 Feb 26;20(2):645-651. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.2.645. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019. PMID: 30806072 Free PMC article.
-
Eliciting vulnerable patients' preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018 Oct 31;12:2267-2282. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S156552. eCollection 2018. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018. PMID: 30464417 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Culturally-adapted behavioral intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake among foreign-born South Asians in New Jersey: the Desi Sehat trial.Ethn Health. 2021 May;26(4):554-570. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2018.1539219. Epub 2018 Nov 4. Ethn Health. 2021. PMID: 30394106 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
References
-
- Ries L, Wingo P, Miller D, et al. The annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973–1997, with a special section on colorectal cancer. Am Cancer Soc. 2000;88:2398–2424. - PubMed
-
- American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures, 2008. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/2008CAFFfinalsecured.pdf.
-
- Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer Advisory Group. US Multi-Society Task Force. American College of Radiology Colon Cancer Committee. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(3):130–160. - PubMed
-
- Whitlock E, Lin J, Liles E, Beil T, Fu R. Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(9):638–658 & W117–W122. - PubMed
-
- Zoorob R, Anderson R, Cefalu C, Sidani M. Cancer screening guidelines. Am Fam Physician. 2001;63(6):1101–1112. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical