Using a discrete choice experiment to inform the design of programs to promote colon cancer screening for vulnerable populations in North Carolina

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Pignone, Michael P ^a   Crutchfield, Trisha M ^b   Brown, Paul M ^c   Hawley, Sarah T ^d   Laping, Jane L ^b   Lewis, Carmen L ^e   Lich, Kristen Hassmiller ^f   Richardson, Lisa C ^g   Tangka, Florence K L ^g   Wheeler, Stephanie B ^f  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^g CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION   (United States)

Author keywords

Behavioral; Choice behavior; Colorectal neoplasms; Decision making; Early detection of cancer; Economics; Health policy; Questionnaires; Rural population; Vulnerable populations

Indexed keywords

AFRICAN AMERICAN; BAYES THEOREM; CAUCASIAN; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DECISION MAKING; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ETHNIC GROUP; FEMALE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NORTH CAROLINA; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RURAL POPULATION; VULNERABLE POPULATION;

AFRICAN AMERICANS; BAYES THEOREM; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; ETHNIC GROUPS; EUROPEAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; FEMALE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NORTH CAROLINA; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; RURAL POPULATION; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; VULNERABLE POPULATIONS;

EID: 84988674568     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-014-0611-4     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Pignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN: 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.
2. Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J: Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002, 137(2):96-104.
3. Beyer KM, Comstock S, Seagren R, Rushton G: Explaining place-based colorectal cancer health disparities: evidence from a rural context. Soc Sci Med 2011, 72(3):373-382.
4. Cole AM, Jackson JE, Doescher M: Colorectal Cancer Screening Disparities for Rural Minorities in the United States. J Prim Care Community Health 2012, 4(2):106-111.
5. Stanley SL, King JB, Thomas CC, Richardson LC: Factors associated with never being screened for colorectal cancer. J Community Health 2013, 38(1):31-39.
6. CDC: Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use - United States, 2012. MMWR 2013, 62(44):881-888.
7. Healthy People 2020 Disparities in Clinical Preventive Services [http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/LHI/clinicalPreventive.aspx?tab=data]
8. The Community Guide: Cancer Prevention and Control [http://www. thecommunityguide.org/cancer/index.html]
9. Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J: Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2002, 2(4):319-326.
10. Pignone MP, Brenner AT, Hawley S, Sheridan SL, Lewis CL, Jonas DE, Howard K: Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med 2012, 27(1):45-50.
11. Brenner A, Howard K, Lewis C, Sheridan S, Crutchfield T, Hawley S, Reuland D, Kistler C, Pignone M: Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia. J Gen Intern Med 2014, 29(3):507-513.
12. Wortley S, Wong G, Kieu A, Howard K: Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient 2014, 7(3):271-282.
13. Wheeler SB, Kuo TM, Goyal RK, Meyer AM, Hassmiller Lich K, Gillen EM, Tyree S, Lewis CL, Crutchfield TM, Martens CE, Tangka F, Richardson LC, Pignone MP: Regional variation in colorectal cancer testing and geographic availability of care in a publicly insured population. Health Place 2014, 29:114-123.
14. Meyer AM, Olshan AF, Green L, Meyer A, Wheeler SB, Basch E, Carpenter WR: Big data for population-based cancer research: the integrated cancer information and surveillance system. N C Med J 2014, 75(4):265-269.
15. Van Dam L, Hol L, De Bekker-Grob EW, Steyerberg EW, Kuipers EJ, Habbema JD, Essink-Bot ML, Van Leerdam ME: What determines individuals' preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer 2010, 46(1):150-159.
16. Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Kulin NA, Özdemir S, Walsh JME, Marshall JK, Van Bebber S, Phillips KA: 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(12):1420-1439.
17. 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(2):354-363.
18. Nayaradou M, Berchi C, Dejardin O, Launoy G: Eliciting population preferences for mass colorectal cancer screening organization. Med Decis Making 2010, 30(2):224-233.
19. Hol L, De Bekker-Grob EW, Van Dam L, Donkers B, Kuipers EJ, Habbema JD, Steyerberg EW, Van Leerdam ME, Essink-Bot ML: Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer 2010, 102(6):972-980.
20. Orme B: Interpreting the Results of Conjoint Analysis. In Getting Started with Conjoint Analyis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. 2nd edition. Madison, Wisc: Research Publishers; 2010:77-88.
21. Promberger M, Dolan P, Marteau TM: "Pay them if it works": discrete choice experiments on the acceptability of financial incentives to change health related behaviour. Soc Sci Med 2012, 75(12):2509-2514.
22. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J: Conjoint analysis applications in health - a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health 2011, 14(4):403-413.
23. Orme B: Sample Size Issues for Conjoint Analysis. In Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. 2nd edition. Madison, Wisconsin: Research Publishers; 2010:57-66.
24. Sawtooth Software Company: The CBC/HB System for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation Version 5.0. In Sawtooth Software: Technical Paper Series. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software; 2009:1-32. http://www.sawtoothsoftware. com/download/techpap/hbtech.pdf.
25. Inadomi JM, Vijan S, Janz NK, Fagerlin A, Thomas JP, Lin YV, Munoz R, Lau C, Somsouk M, El-Nachef N, Hayward RA: Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med 2012, 172(7):575-582.
26. Sutherland K, Christianson JB, Leatherman S: Impact of targeted financial incentives on personal health behavior: a review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 2008, 65(6 Suppl):36S-78S.
27. Marteau TM, Ashcroft RE, Oliver A: Using financial incentives to achieve healthy behaviour. BMJ 2009, 338:b1415.