Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 3/2014

01.03.2014 | Original Research

Comparing 3 Values Clarification Methods for Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision-Making: A Randomized Trial in the US and Australia

verfasst von: Alison Brenner, PhD, MPH, Kirsten Howard, PhD, Carmen Lewis, MD, MPH, Stacey Sheridan, MD, MPH, Trisha Crutchfield, MHA, MSIS, Sarah Hawley, PhD, Dan Reuland, MD, MPH, Christine Kistler, MD, MPH, Michael Pignone, MD, MPH

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 3/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

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.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Soerjomataram I, Lortet-Tieulent J, Parkin DM, et al. Global burden of cancer in 2008: a systematic analysis of disability-adjusted life-years in 12 world regions. Lancet. 2012;380(9856):1840–50.PubMedCrossRef Soerjomataram I, Lortet-Tieulent J, Parkin DM, et al. Global burden of cancer in 2008: a systematic analysis of disability-adjusted life-years in 12 world regions. Lancet. 2012;380(9856):1840–50.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. 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):130–60.PubMedCrossRef Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. 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):130–60.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Elwyn G, O’Connor AM, Stacey D, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Elwyn G, O’Connor AM, Stacey D, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Pignone MP, Fagerlin A, Abhyankar P, et al. Clarifying and expressing values. In: Volk RJ, Llewellyn-Thomas H, eds. 2012 Update of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s Background Document. 2012:Chapter D. Available at: http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS-Chapter-D.pdf. Accessed September 16, 2013. Pignone MP, Fagerlin A, Abhyankar P, et al. Clarifying and expressing values. In: Volk RJ, Llewellyn-Thomas H, eds. 2012 Update of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s Background Document. 2012:Chapter D. Available at: http://​ipdas.​ohri.​ca/​IPDAS-Chapter-D.​pdf. Accessed September 16, 2013.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Fagerlin A, Rovner D, Stableford S, Jentoft C, Wei JT, Holmes-Rovner M. Patient education materials about the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer: a critical review. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(9):721–8.PubMedCrossRef Fagerlin A, Rovner D, Stableford S, Jentoft C, Wei JT, Holmes-Rovner M. Patient education materials about the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer: a critical review. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(9):721–8.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Pignone MP, Brenner AT, Hawley ST, et al. Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(1):45–50.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Pignone MP, Brenner AT, Hawley ST, et al. Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(1):45–50.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Pöyhönen M, Hämäläinen RP. On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. Eur J Oper Res. 2001;129(3):569–85.CrossRef Pöyhönen M, Hämäläinen RP. On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. Eur J Oper Res. 2001;129(3):569–85.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Marshall D, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10(5):415–30.PubMedCrossRef Marshall D, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10(5):415–30.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Marshall D, Johnson FR, Kulin NA, 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(12):1420–39.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Marshall D, Johnson FR, Kulin NA, 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(12):1420–39.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
16.
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Flitcroft KL, St John DJB, Howard K, et al. A comparative case study of bowel cancer screening in the UK and Australia: evidence lost in translation? J Med Screen. 2011;18(4):193–203.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Flitcroft KL, St John DJB, Howard K, et al. A comparative case study of bowel cancer screening in the UK and Australia: evidence lost in translation? J Med Screen. 2011;18(4):193–203.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Pignone MP, Howard K, Brenner AT, et al. Comparing 3 techniques for eliciting patient values for decision making about prostate-specific antigen screening: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(5):362–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Pignone MP, Howard K, Brenner AT, et al. Comparing 3 techniques for eliciting patient values for decision making about prostate-specific antigen screening: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(5):362–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Sandor Z, Wedel M. Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Mark Sci. 2002;21(4):455–75.CrossRef Sandor Z, Wedel M. Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Mark Sci. 2002;21(4):455–75.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res. 1996;33(3):307–17.CrossRef Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res. 1996;33(3):307–17.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30.CrossRef O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Kistler C, Hess T, Pignone MP, Hawley ST, Lewis CL. A discrete choice analysis of older adults’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests. In: AGS Annual Meeting. Seattle, WA; 2012:S168. Kistler C, Hess T, Pignone MP, Hawley ST, Lewis CL. A discrete choice analysis of older adults’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests. In: AGS Annual Meeting. Seattle, WA; 2012:S168.
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Pieterse AH, de Vries M. On the suitability of fast and frugal heuristics for designing values clarification methods in patient decision aids: a critical analysis. Health Expect. 2011:1–7. Pieterse AH, de Vries M. On the suitability of fast and frugal heuristics for designing values clarification methods in patient decision aids: a critical analysis. Health Expect. 2011:1–7.
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, early detection, and management of colorectal cancer. Clin Pract Guidel. 2005;25(4). Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, early detection, and management of colorectal cancer. Clin Pract Guidel. 2005;25(4).
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Klabunde CN, Vernon SW, Nadel MR, et al. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of reports from primary care physicians and average-risk adults. Med Care. 2005;43(9):939–44.PubMedCrossRef Klabunde CN, Vernon SW, Nadel MR, et al. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of reports from primary care physicians and average-risk adults. Med Care. 2005;43(9):939–44.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Comparing 3 Values Clarification Methods for Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision-Making: A Randomized Trial in the US and Australia
verfasst von
Alison Brenner, PhD, MPH
Kirsten Howard, PhD
Carmen Lewis, MD, MPH
Stacey Sheridan, MD, MPH
Trisha Crutchfield, MHA, MSIS
Sarah Hawley, PhD
Dan Reuland, MD, MPH
Christine Kistler, MD, MPH
Michael Pignone, MD, MPH
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2014
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 3/2014
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2701-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2014

Journal of General Internal Medicine 3/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.