Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia
- PMID: 24272830
- PMCID: PMC3930768
- DOI: 10.1007/s11606-013-2701-0
Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the effects of three methods of values clarification (VCM): balance sheet; rating and ranking; and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on decision-making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults in the US and Australia.
Methods: Using online panels managed by a survey research organization in the US and Australia, we recruited adults ages 50-75 at average risk for CRC for an online survey. Those eligible were randomized to one of the three VCM tasks. CRC screening options were described in terms of five key attributes: reduction in risk of CRC incidence and mortality; nature of the screening test; screening frequency; complications from screening; and chance of requiring a colonoscopy (as initial or follow-up testing). Main outcomes included self-reported most important attribute and unlabeled screening test preference by VCM and by country, assessed after the VCM.
Results: A total of 920 participants were enrolled; 51 % were Australian; mean age was 59.0; 87.0 % were white; 34.2 % had a 4-year college degree; 42.8 % had household incomes less than $45,000 USD per year; 44.9 % were up to date with CRC screening. Most important attribute differed across VCM groups: the rating and ranking group was more likely to choose risk reduction as most important attribute (69.8 %) than the balance sheet group (54.7 %) or DCE (49.3 %), p < 0.0001; most important attribute did not vary by country (p = 0.236). The fecal occult blood test (FOBT)-like test was the most frequently preferred test overall (55.9 %). Unlabeled test choice did not differ meaningfully by VCM. Australians were more likely to prefer the FOBT (AU 66.2 % vs. US 45.1 %, OR 2.4, 95 % CI 1.8, 3.1). Few participants favored no screening (US: 9.2 %, AU: 6.2 %).
Conclusions: Screening test attribute importance varied by VCM, but not by country. FOBT was more commonly preferred by Australians than by Americans, but test preferences were heterogeneous in both countries.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01558583.
Comment in
-
Capsule commentary on Brenner et al., comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia.J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Mar;29(3):519. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2741-5. J Gen Intern Med. 2014. PMID: 24366400 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening.J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jan;27(1):45-50. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1837-z. Epub 2011 Aug 26. J Gen Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 21870192 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Comparing 3 techniques for eliciting patient values for decision making about prostate-specific antigen screening: a randomized controlled trial.JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Mar 11;173(5):362-8. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2651. JAMA Intern Med. 2013. PMID: 23400279 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
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.
-
Systematic review of colorectal cancer screening guidelines for average-risk adults: Summarizing the current global recommendations.World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Jan 7;24(1):124-138. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i1.124. World J Gastroenterol. 2018. PMID: 29358889 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Oct. Report No.: 08-05-05124-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Oct. Report No.: 08-05-05124-EF-1. PMID: 20722162 Free Books & Documents. Review.
Cited by
-
What Breast Cancer Screening Program do Rural Women Prefer? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Jiangsu, China.Patient. 2024 Jul;17(4):363-378. doi: 10.1007/s40271-024-00684-9. Epub 2024 Mar 14. Patient. 2024. PMID: 38483691
-
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 29;1(1):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub6. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 38284415 Review.
-
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.
-
Attributes Characterizing Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests That Influence Preferences of Individuals Eligible for Screening in Germany: A Qualitative Study.Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022 Aug 10;16:2051-2066. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S365429. eCollection 2022. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022. PMID: 35975173 Free PMC article.
-
Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.Patient. 2022 May;15(3):269-285. doi: 10.1007/s40271-021-00559-3. Epub 2021 Oct 21. Patient. 2022. PMID: 34671946
References
-
- Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Cancer Series. National Bowel Cancer Screening Program monitoring report: phase 2, July 2008–June 2011. 2011;(65). Available at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737421401. Accessed October 3, 2013.
-
- American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures. 2012. Available at: http://www.cancer.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/acs/groups/content/@e.... Accessed October 3, 2013.
-
- Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Liles E, Beil TL, 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. Available at: http://www.annals.org/content/149/9/638.abstract. - PubMed
-
- Pignone MP, Rich M, Teutsch S. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(2):132–141. Available at: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13791134. Accessed November 9, 2012. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
