The COMPASs study: Community Preferences for Prostate Cancer Screening. Protocol for a quantitative preference study

BMJ Open

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Howard, Kirsten ^a   Salkeld, Glenn P ^a   Mann, Graham J ^b   Patel, Manish I ^b   Cunich, Michelle ^a   Pignone, Michael P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; DECISION MAKING; FAMILY HISTORY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PROSTATE CANCER; QUANTITATIVE STUDY;

EID: 84859042126     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000587     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostatecancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1320-8.
2. Andriole G, Grubb RL, Buys SS, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1310-19.
3. Howard K, Barratt A, Mann GJ, et al. A model of prostate-specific antigen screening outcomes for low-to high-risk men: information to support informed choices. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1603-10.
4. American Urological Association. Can Prostate Cancer be found early? 2009. http://www.auanet.org/content/guidelines-and-qualitycare/policy- statements/e/early-detection-of-prostate-cancer.cfm (accessed Oct. 2011).
5. American Cancer Society. Can Prostate Cancer be found early? 2010. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI-2-4-3X-Can-prostate-cancer-be- found-early-36.asp?sitearea (accessed Oct. 2011).
6. American College of Physicians. Screening for prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:484.
7. Cancer Council Australia. Position Statement - Prostate Cancer. 2010. http://www.cancer.org.au/policy/positionstatements/prostatecancer.htm (accessed 18 Oct. 2011).
8. US Preventive Services. Screening for prostate cancer: U. S. Preventive services Task Force recommendation statement (DRAFT). 2011. http://www. uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/draftrec3.htm (accessed 18 Oct. 2011).
9. US Preventive Services. Screening for Prostate Cancer. 2008. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsprca.htm (accessed 2 Jun. 2008).
10. Dartmouth Atlas Projeect. Preference sensitive care. A Dartmouth Atlas Project Topic Brief. 2011. http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/ preference-sensitive.pdf
11. O'Donnell J. Help me in my confusion: should we think more about mammography and colonoscopy as "preference sensitive care"? J Cancer Educ 2010;25:471-2.
12. Gyrd-Hansen D, Sogaard J. Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programs. Health Econ 2001;10:617-34. (Pubitemid 32998373)
13. Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, et al. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health 2007;10:415-30. (Pubitemid 47481113)
14. Marshall DA, McGregor E, Currie G. Measuring preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening e What are the implications for moving forward? The Patient - Patient Centred Outcomes Research 2010;3:79-89.
15. Salkeld G, Solomon M, Short L, et al. Evidence-based consumer choice: a case study in colorectal cancer screening. Aust N Z J Public Health 2003;27:449-55. (Pubitemid 37038228)
16. Howard K, Salkeld G. Does attribute Framing in discrete choice experiments influence Willingness to Pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value Health 2009;121:354-3.
17. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:661-77. (Pubitemid 351989058)
18. Bridges JF, Kinter E, Kidane L, et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: recent trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1970-2007. The Patient 2008;1:273-82.
19. Marshall DA, Bridges JF, Hauber AB, et al. Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - How are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. The Patient 2010;3:249-56.
20. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall DA, et al. Conjoint analysis Applications in health-a Checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis Task Force. Value Health 2011;14:5.
21. Smith DP, King MT, Egger S, et al. Quality of life three years after diagnosis of localised prostate cancer: population based cohort study. BMJ 2009;339:b4817.
22. Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice design. J Market Res 1996; XXXIII: 307-17.
23. Sandor Z, Wedel M. Profile construction in experimental designs for mixed logit models. Marketing Science 2002;21:455-75.
24. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis. A Primer. 1st edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
25. Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait JD, et al. Stated Choice Methods - Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
26. Hensher DA, Greene WH. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003;30:133-76. (Pubitemid 36405819)