Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 5/2013

01.10.2013 | Original Research Article

Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Techniques and Intention to Attend: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

verfasst von: J. Marjan Hummel, Lotte G. M. Steuten, C. J. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Nick Mulder, Maarten J. IJzerman

Erschienen in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Ausgabe 5/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Despite the expected health benefits of colorectal cancer screening programs, participation rates remain low in countries that have implemented such a screening program. The perceived benefits and risks of the colorectal cancer screening technique are likely to influence the decision to attend the screening program. Besides the diagnostic accuracy and the risks of the screening technique, which can affect the health of the participants, additional factors, such as the burden of the test, may impact the individuals’ decisions to participate. To maximise the participation rate of a screening program for a new colorectal cancer program in the Netherlands, it is important to know the preferences of the screening population for alternative screening techniques.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore the impact of preferences for particular attributes of the screening tests on the intention to attend a colorectal cancer screening program.

Methods

We used a web-based questionnaire to elicit the preferences of the target population for a selection of colon-screening techniques. The target population consisted of Dutch men and women aged 55–75 years. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a technique for multi-criteria analysis, was used to estimate the colorectal cancer screening preferences. Respondents weighted the relevance of five criteria, i.e. the attributes of the screening techniques: sensitivity, specificity, safety, inconvenience, and frequency of the test. With regard to these criteria, preferences were estimated between four alternative screening techniques, namely, immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT), colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and computerized tomographic (CT) colonography. A five-point ordinal scale was used to estimate the respondents’ intention to attend the screening. We conducted a correlation analysis on the preferences for the screening techniques and the intention to attend.

Results

We included 167 respondents who were consistent in their judgments of the relevance of the criteria and their preferences for the screening techniques. The most preferred screening method for the national screening program was CT colonography. Sensitivity (weight = 0.26) and safety (weight = 0.26) were the strongest determinants of the overall preferences for the screening techniques. However, the screening test with the highest intention to attend was iFOBT. Inconvenience (correlation [r] = 0.69), safety (r = 0.58), and the frequency of the test (r = 0.58) were most strongly related to intention to attend.

Conclusions

The multi-criteria decision analysis revealed the attributes of the screening techniques that are most important so as to increase intention to participate in a screening program. Even though the respondents may recognize the high importance of diagnostic effectiveness in the long term, their short-term decision to attend the screening tests may be less driven by this consideration. Our analysis suggests that inconvenience, safety, and frequency of the test are the strongest technique-related determinants of the respondents’ intention to participate in colorectal screening programs.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(4):765–81.CrossRefPubMed Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(4):765–81.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Visser O, van Leeuwen FE. Stage-specific survival of epithelial cancers in North-Holland/Flevoland, The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(15):2321–30.CrossRefPubMed Visser O, van Leeuwen FE. Stage-specific survival of epithelial cancers in North-Holland/Flevoland, The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(15):2321–30.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Brenner H. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening—an overview. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2010;24(4):439–49.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Brenner H. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening—an overview. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2010;24(4):439–49.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan JG. Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions. Health Expect. 2005;8(4):334–44.CrossRefPubMed Dolan JG. Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions. Health Expect. 2005;8(4):334–44.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Philips KA, et al. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10(5):415–30.CrossRefPubMed Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Philips KA, et al. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10(5):415–30.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Gupta S. Will test-specific adherence predict the best colorectal cancer screening strategy? Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(5):359; author reply 359–60. Gupta S. Will test-specific adherence predict the best colorectal cancer screening strategy? Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(5):359; author reply 359–60.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Katsumura Y, Yasunaga H, Imamura T, et al. Relationship between risk information on total colonoscopy and patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening options: analysis using the analytic hierarchy process. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:106. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-106.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Katsumura Y, Yasunaga H, Imamura T, et al. Relationship between risk information on total colonoscopy and patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening options: analysis using the analytic hierarchy process. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:106. doi:10.​1186/​1472-6963-8-106.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Imaeda A, Bender D, Fraenkel L. What is most important to patients when deciding about colorectal screening? J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(7):688–93.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Imaeda A, Bender D, Fraenkel L. What is most important to patients when deciding about colorectal screening? J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(7):688–93.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Hobbs B, Meier P. Multicriteria methods for resource planning: an experimental comparison. IEEE T Power Syst. 1994;9:1811–7.CrossRef Hobbs B, Meier P. Multicriteria methods for resource planning: an experimental comparison. IEEE T Power Syst. 1994;9:1811–7.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Saaty T. Making and validating complex decisions with the AHP/ANP. J Syst Sci Syst Eng. 2005;14:1–36.CrossRef Saaty T. Making and validating complex decisions with the AHP/ANP. J Syst Sci Syst Eng. 2005;14:1–36.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Whitaker R. Validation examples of the analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process. Math Comput Model. 2007;46:840–59.CrossRef Whitaker R. Validation examples of the analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process. Math Comput Model. 2007;46:840–59.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Huizingh EKRE, Vrolijk HCJ. Extending the applicability of the analytic hierarchy process. Socio-Econ Plan. 1997;31(1):29–39.CrossRef Huizingh EKRE, Vrolijk HCJ. Extending the applicability of the analytic hierarchy process. Socio-Econ Plan. 1997;31(1):29–39.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Ishizaka A, Balkenborg D, Kaplan T. Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation. J Oper Res Soc. 2011;62:1801–12.CrossRef Ishizaka A, Balkenborg D, Kaplan T. Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation. J Oper Res Soc. 2011;62:1801–12.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Saaty TL. Highlights and critical-points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 1994;74(3):426–47.CrossRef Saaty TL. Highlights and critical-points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 1994;74(3):426–47.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple-criteria decision-making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple-criteria decision-making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Health Council of the Netherlands. A national colorectal cancer screening programme. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 2009; Publication No. 2009/13E. ISBN 978-90-5549-780-5. Health Council of the Netherlands. A national colorectal cancer screening programme. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 2009; Publication No. 2009/13E. ISBN 978-90-5549-780-5.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Drossaert CH, Boer H, Seydel ER. Women’s opinions about attending for breast cancer screening: stability of cognitive determinants during three rounds of screening. Br J Health Psychol. 2005;10(Pt 1):133–49.CrossRefPubMed Drossaert CH, Boer H, Seydel ER. Women’s opinions about attending for breast cancer screening: stability of cognitive determinants during three rounds of screening. Br J Health Psychol. 2005;10(Pt 1):133–49.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Lancsara E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811.CrossRef Lancsara E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Cragg JG. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica. 1971;829–44. Cragg JG. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica. 1971;829–44.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan JG, Boohaker E, Allison J, Imperiale TF. Patients’ preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(1):59–70.CrossRef Dolan JG, Boohaker E, Allison J, Imperiale TF. Patients’ preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(1):59–70.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat 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? Comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ. 2009;18(12):1420–39.CrossRefPubMed 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? Comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ. 2009;18(12):1420–39.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Salkeld G, Solomon M, Short L, Ryan M, Ward JE. Evidence-based consumer choice: a case study in colorectal cancer screening. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2003;27(4):449–55.CrossRefPubMed Salkeld G, Solomon M, Short L, Ryan M, Ward JE. Evidence-based consumer choice: a case study in colorectal cancer screening. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2003;27(4):449–55.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Montano D, Taplin S. A test of an expanded theory of reasoned action to predict mammography screening. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32:733–41.CrossRefPubMed Montano D, Taplin S. A test of an expanded theory of reasoned action to predict mammography screening. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32:733–41.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Castiglione G, Zappa M, Grazzini G, Rubeca T, Turco P, Sani C, Ciatto S. Screening for colorectal cancer by faecal occult blood test: comparison of immunochemical tests. J Med Screen. 2000;7:35–7.CrossRefPubMed Castiglione G, Zappa M, Grazzini G, Rubeca T, Turco P, Sani C, Ciatto S. Screening for colorectal cancer by faecal occult blood test: comparison of immunochemical tests. J Med Screen. 2000;7:35–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Techniques and Intention to Attend: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
verfasst von
J. Marjan Hummel
Lotte G. M. Steuten
C. J. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn
Nick Mulder
Maarten J. IJzerman
Publikationsdatum
01.10.2013
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Ausgabe 5/2013
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0051-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2013

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 5/2013 Zur Ausgabe