Preferences for potential innovations in non-invasive colorectal cancer screening: A labeled discrete choice experiment for a Dutch screening campaign

Acta Oncologica

Volumn 53, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 898-908

  Benning, Tim M ^a   Dellaert, Benedict G C ^b   Dirksen, Carmen D ^c   Severens, Johan L ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD EXAMINATION; CANCER SCREENING; COLORECTAL CANCER; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FECES ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NON INVASIVE PROCEDURE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK REDUCTION; SCREENING TEST; BLOOD ANALYSIS; BLOOD SAMPLING; CANCER RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NETHERLANDS; NON INVASIVE MEASUREMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE; BLOOD; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; HEALTH SURVEY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

AGED; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT PREFERENCE;

EID: 84903269138     PISSN: 0284186X     EISSN: 1651226X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2013.877159     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Mandel JS, Bond J H, Church TR, Dale C, Snover G, Bradley M, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood . N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1365-71.
2. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, Bond J, Burt R, Ferrucci J, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: Clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence . Gastroenterology 2003; 124: 544-60.
3. Deutekom M, van Rijn A F, Dekker E, Blaauwgeers H, Stronks K, Fockens P, et al. Uptake of faecal occult bloodtest colorectal cancer screening by different ethnic groups in the Netherlands . Eur J Public Health 2009; 19: 400-2.
4. van Rossum LG, van Rijn A F, Laheij RJ, Van Oijen MG, Fockens P, van Krieken HH, et al. Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood-tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population . Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 82-90.
5. Berkowitz Z, Hawkins NA, Peipins LA, White MC, Nadel MR . Beliefs, risk perceptions, and gaps in knowledge as barriers to colorectal cancer screening in older adults . J Am Geriatr Soc 2008; 56: 307-14.
6. Jones RM, Woolf SH, Cunningham TD, Johnson RE, Krist AH, Rothemich SF, et al. The relative importance of patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening . Am J Prev Med 2010; 38: 499-507.
7. Klabunde CN, Vernon SW, Nadel MR, Breen N, Seeff LC, Brown ML . Barriers to colorectal cancer screening. A comparison of reports from primary care physicians and averagerisk adults. Med Care 2005; 43: 939-44.
8. Bosch LJW, Carvalho B, Fijneman RJA, Jimenez CR, Pinedo HM, van Engeland M, et al. Molecular tests for colorectal cancer screening. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2011; 10: 8-23.
9. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH . Applied choice analysis: A primer . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
10. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M . Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care (vol. 11 ) . Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer; 2008.
11. De Bekker-Grob E W, Ryan M, Gerard K . Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature . Health Econ 2012; 21: 145-72.
12. De Bekker-Grob EW, Hol L, Donkers B, van Dam L, Habbema JDF, van Leerdam ME, et al. Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: An application to colorectal cancer screening . Value Health 2010; 13: 315-23.
13. Gyrd-Hansen G, Søgaard J . Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes . Health Econ 2001; 10: 617-34.
14. Hawley S T, Volk R J, Krishnamurthy P, Jibaja-Weiss M, Vernon SW, Kneuper S . Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients . Med Care 2008; 46: 10-16.
15. Hol L, de Bekker-Grob EW, van Dam L, Donkers B, Kuipers EJ, Habbema JDF, et al. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: A discrete choice experiment . Br J Cancer 2010; 102: 972-80.
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; 12: 354-63.
17. Marshall D A, Reed Johnson F, Phillips K A, Marshall J K, Thabane L, Kulin NA . Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey . Value Health 2007; 10: 415-30.
18. Marshall D A, Reed Johnson, F, Kulin N A, Özedmir S, Walsh JME, Marshall JK, et al. How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ 2009; 18: 1420-39.
19. Nayaradou M, Berchi C, Dejardin O, Launoy G . E liciting population preferences for mass colorectal cancer screening organization . Med Decis Making 2010; 30: 224-33.
20. Ryan M, San Miguel F . Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care . Health Econ 2003; 12: 295-307.
21. Salkeld G, Solomon, M, Short L, Ryan M, Ward JE . Evidence-based consumer choice: A case study in colorectal cancer screening . Austr N Z J Public Health 2003; 27: 449-55 . Van Dam
22. L, Hol L, de Bekker-Grob E W, Steyerberg E W, Kuipers EJ, Habbema JDF, et al. What determines individuals'preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 150-9.
23. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, Liberati A, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches . The GRADE working Group. BMC Health Serv Res 2004; 4: 38.
24. Marshall DA, McGregor ES, Currie G . Measuring preferences for colorectal cancer screening . What are the implications for moving forward? Patient 2010; 3: 79-89.
25. Goede S L, van Roon A H, Reijerink J C, van Vuuren AJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Habbema JD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of one versus two sample faecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening . Gut 2013; 62: 727-34.
26. Benning TM, Dirksen CD, Dellaert BGC, Severens JL . Measuring consumers'preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests in The Netherlands . Unpublished observations.
27. Bech M, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J . Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2011; 20: 273-86.
28. Ben-Akiva M, Bradley M, Morikawa T, Benjamin J, Novak T, Oppewal H, et al. Combining revealed and stated preferences data . Market Lett 1994; 5: 335-49.
29. Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L . The veil of experience: Do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ 2000; 9: 267-70.