What determines individuals’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment
Introduction
Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is the second most frequently occurring malignancy in the European Union (EU), and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the Western world.1 A recent study demonstrates that for many European countries CRC mortality rates are decreasing while incidence is rising, suggesting an increasing CRC prevalence.2 CRC screening is effective in reducing CRC mortality.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Screening can reduce CRC mortality by early detection of CRC and endoscopic removal of premalignant precursors of CRC (adenomas).5, 11, 12 There are several methods available for CRC screening. The various types of faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) primarily aiming at the early detection of CRC, whereas endoscopic screening tests (flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy) are effective at both early detection and removal of premalignant lesions.12 Different screening methods are expected to have a different impact on CRC mortality reduction due to these differences in preventive potential. CRC screening methods also differ with respect to procedural characteristics, which determine the subject’s burden of a screening method. CRC screening methods perceived as the most burdensome (FS, colonoscopy) also have the largest potential for prevention of CRC.12 Currently, insufficient evidence is available to recommend one screening method over another.
Attendance is an important determinant of the effectiveness of CRC screening programmes. Uptake of CRC screening in a pilot screening programme in the Netherlands has remained lower than uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening.13, 14, 15 In many other countries, uptake of CRC screening, as well as continuing adherence to CRC screening, has also remained suboptimal.3, 4, 13, 16, 17, 18 It has been established that increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake, in comparison with other targets, has a large potential for reducing CRC-related mortality.19 Attendance rates depend on the willingness of individuals to undergo a certain screening test. This willingness may be influenced by perceived advantages and drawbacks of CRC screening tests and furthermore, by knowledge and awareness of CRC, CRC risk and CRC screening.18, 20, 21 Individuals may be willing to undergo a screening test despite several drawbacks in order to maximise health benefit or vice versa (to accept a lower health benefit in order to avoid several burdensome test characteristics). To optimise a CRC screening programme it is of paramount importance to gain insight in factors that influence population preferences for CRC screening programmes, and the trade-offs individuals are willing to make between benefits and drawbacks of a CRC screening programme. Research has shown that patient preferences can have a major impact on their willingness to use services and furthermore, there is an increasing emphasis on involvement of patients in health care decisions.22
This study therefore investigated preferences for CRC screening using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). DCE is a survey methodology with its origin in market research. DCEs are widely used for the assessment of preferences in transport and environmental economics and in marketing research.23 They are increasingly used for health care purposes.24, 25
It has been demonstrated that awareness of CRC and CRC screening in the Netherlands has remained low.21 There is currently no organised CRC screening programme in the Netherlands, except for hereditary or familial CRC. A similar situation is encountered in many countries in the EU, in fact, only approximately 50% of the target population is offered any type of screening for CRC. It is of particular importance to study preferences in a screening-naïve population, since they may guide the introduction and adjustment of new CRC screening programmes in these countries.
The aim of our study was to determine how procedural characteristics of various CRC screening methods determine preferences for participation, and how individuals weigh these against the expected health benefits from CRC screening. We compared the relative importance of aspects of the three most commonly used CRC screening tests: FOBT, FS and colonoscopy.
Section snippets
Study population
We conducted the study in two groups. The first group included a total of 500 screening-naïve individuals aged 50–74 years old who were randomly selected from the population registry of the region Rijnmond in the Southwest of the Netherlands. The region includes Rotterdam and surrounding suburbs and harbours 338,000 inhabitants in the target age groups. The second group included 210 participants of a randomised screening trial for CRC in the Netherlands from the same target population as
Respondents
The response rate was higher among CRC screening participants (59%; 124/210) than screening-naïve individuals (31%; 156/500) (Fig. 2, Table 2). The characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 2. Among the screening-naïve group, 22% had undergone an endoscopy in the past. Within the group of CRC screening participants, 53% had previous endoscopy experience including 22% (16/72) of FOBT screenees and logically all FS screening subjects (48/48).
DCE results
Forty-three percent of the screening-naïve
Discussion
Our study demonstrates the importance of several procedural characteristics of CRC screening programmes for the preferences of potential and actual screenees: risk reduction of CRC-related death, preparation for the procedure, procedure-related pain and complications and screening interval. To optimise a screening programme, the attendance rate should be high. A high attendance rate is only possible when the utilised screening strategy and the information given connect with the preferences of
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by grants from the Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds (EMCR 2008-4117 and EMCR 2006-3673).
References (50)
- et al.
Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006
Ann Oncol
(2007) - et al.
Recent trends of cancer in Europe: a combined approach of incidence, survival and mortality for 17 cancer sites since the 1990s
Eur J Cancer
(2008) - et al.
Reduction in colorectal cancer mortality by fecal occult blood screening in a French controlled study
Gastroenterology
(2004) - et al.
Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer
Lancet
(1996) - et al.
Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test
Lancet
(1996) - et al.
Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population
Gastroenterology
(2008) - et al.
What influences clinicians’ operative preferences for women with breast cancer? An application of the discrete choice experiment
Eur J Cancer
(2007) - et al.
Crohn’s disease patients’ risk-benefit preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy
Gastroenterology
(2007) - et al.
Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments
Int J Res Market
(2005) - et al.
Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey
Value Health
(2007)
Evidence-based consumer choice: a case study in colorectal cancer screening
Aust NZ J Public Health
Why do women participate in the English cervical cancer screening programme?
J Health Econ
Determinants of colorectal cancer screening use, attempts, and non-use
Prev Med
Risk of colorectal cancer seven years after flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: randomised controlled trial
BMJ
Survival benefit in a randomized clinical trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer
Brit J Surg
Colorectal cancer mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood
J Natl Cancer Inst
Effect of faecal occult blood screening on mortality from colorectal cancer: results from a randomised controlled trial
Gut
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
Monitoring a national cancer prevention program: successful changes in cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands
Int J Cancer
Colonoscopy results of a French regional FOBT-based colorectal cancer screening program with high compliance
Endoscopy
Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review
J Natl Cancer Inst
Cited by (59)
Heterogeneous Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Germany: Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment
2023, Value in HealthCitation Excerpt :Although a comprehensive and unbiased presentation of benefits and harms is essential for enabling individual informed decision making,18 complications had no impact on choices for both class 1 and 2 members. Nevertheless, this confirms previous results of comparable studies41-43,55 in which attributes such as pain or discomfort or the risk of complications were predominantly secondary. However, when asked, insurees want at least to be informed about potential harms with high priority.58
Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening
2022, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :Secondly, the impact; with approximately 4 million Dutch residents between 55 and 75 years old, many people face the decision to participate in CRC screening (RIVM. Colorectal cancer screening programme, 2011). Thirdly, the knowledge gap; there have been studies that explore preferences for CRC screening using DCEs, but most do not include the role of respondent characteristics in screening participation and none of them compared stated and revealed preferences (Benning et al., 2014; van Dam et al., 2010; de Bekker-Grob et al., 2021; Veldwijk et al., 2016; Heidenreich et al., 2022). Participation in CRC screening is the key to success of screening programme on national level (i.e. increase in number of polyps detected early and deaths prevented), yet it relies on the personal choice of individuals (Ladabaum et al., 2020; Bevolkingsonderzoek Nederland, 2022).
A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment
2022, Journal of Health EconomicsCitation Excerpt :For example, there may be two or more screening options available to promote early detection of colorectal cancer. One option may be more invasive but more diagnostic than the other, which in its turn is less invasive but also less accurate in its detection capability, thus inviting a decision by the patient that analysts surmise is based on risk/benefit tradeoffs (see, e.g., Hol et al., 2010, van Dam et al. 2010). The rational decision maker assumption of economics has longstanding empirical and theoretical work suggesting alternative processes for decision making in general (e.g., Simon 1955, Kahneman and Tversky 1979, Thaler 1985, Payne et al., 1993, Rubenstein 1998, Luce et al., 2001), and health decision making in particular (e.g., Taylor 2000, McCaughey and Bruning 2010, Marewski and Gigerenzer 2012); and qualitative empirical work pointing to quite different depictions of how patients make health-related decisions (e.g., Sutkowi-Hemstreet et al., 2015, Lie et al., 2019, Taylor et al., 2021).
Cancer patient preferences for the provision of information regarding emotional concerns in relation to medical procedures: A discrete choice experiment
2020, Patient Education and Counseling