Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening

"Things That You Thought Mattered, None of That Matters": A Qualitative Exploration of Family Caregiver Values following Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

BACKGROUND

Intentional exploration, or elicitation, of patient and family values-who/what matters most-is critical to the delivery of person-centered care, yet the values elicitation experiences of family caregivers have been understudied. Understanding caregiver experiences discussing, reflecting upon, and acting on their values is critical to optimizing health decisions after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the values elicitation experiences of family caregivers of individuals with an LVAD in the postimplantation period.

METHODS

This was a qualitative descriptive study of LVAD caregivers recruited from an outpatient clinic in the southeast United States. After completing one-on-one semistructured interviews, participants' transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Interviewed caregivers (n = 21) were 27 to 76 years old, with 67% African American, 76% female, 76% urban-dwelling, and 62% a spouse/partner. LVAD implantation was an impactful experience prompting caregiver reevaluation of their values; these values became instrumental to navigating decisions and managing stressors from their caregiving role. Three broad themes of caregiver values elicitation experiences emerged: (1) caregivers leverage their values for strength and guidance in navigating their caregiving role, (2) LVAD implantation prompts (re)evaluation of relationships and priorities, and (3) caregivers convey their goals and priorities when deemed relevant to patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Having a care recipient undergo LVAD implantation prompted caregivers to reevaluate their values, which were used to navigate caregiving decisions and stressors. Findings highlight the need for healthcare professionals to engage and support caregivers after LVAD implantation.

"When I do have some time, rather than spend it polishing silver, I want to spend it with my grandkids": a qualitative exploration of patient values following left ventricular assist device implantation

BACKGROUND

Values are broadly understood to have implications for how individuals make decisions and cope with serious illness stressors, yet it remains uncertain how patients and their family and friend caregivers discuss, reflect upon, and act on their values in the post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation context. This study aimed to explore the values elicitation experiences of patients with an LVAD in the post-implantation period.

METHODS

Qualitative descriptive study of LVAD recipients. Socio-demographics and patient resource use were analyzed using descriptive statistics and semi-structured interview data using thematic analysis. Adult (> 18 years) patients with an LVAD receiving care at an outpatient clinic in the Southeastern United States.

RESULTS

Interviewed patients (n = 27) were 30-76 years, 59% male, 67% non-Hispanic Black, 70% married/living with a partner, and 70% urban-dwelling. Three broad themes of patient values elicitation experiences emerged: 1) LVAD implantation prompts deep reflection about life and what is important, 2) patient values are communicated in various circumstances to convey personal goals and priorities to caregivers and clinicians, and 3) patients leverage their values for strength and guidance in navigating life post-LVAD implantation. LVAD implantation was an impactful experience often leading to reevaluation of patients' values; these values became instrumental to making health decisions and coping with stressors during the post-LVAD implantation period. Patient values arose within broad, informal exchanges and focused, decision-making conversations with their caregiver and the healthcare team.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should consider assessing the values of patients post-implantation to facilitate shared understanding of their goals/priorities and identify potential changes in their coping.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Use of a mixed-methods approach to develop a guidebook with messaging to encourage colorectal cancer screening among Black individuals 45 and older

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and disproportionately impacts Black individuals. Here, we describe the mixed-methods approach used to develop a tailored message guidebook to promote CRC screening among Black individuals in the setting of recently updated screening guidelines.

METHODS

This mixed-methods study included 10 in-depth qualitative interviews and 490 surveys in a nationally representative sample of unscreened Black individuals age ≥ 45. Messages were developed based on American Cancer Society (ACS) and National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCCRT) research findings, tested among Black individuals using MaxDiff analytic methods, and reviewed by a multi-sector expert advisory committee of NCCRT members.

RESULTS

The most frequently reported screening barrier in all age groups was self-reported procrastination (40.0% in age 45-49, 42.8% for age 50-54, 34.2% for age ≥ 55). Reasons for procrastination varied by age and included financial concerns, COVID-19 concerns, and fear of the test and bowel preparation. Additional screening barriers included lack of symptoms, provider recommendation, and family history of CRC. Most individuals age 45-49 preferred to receive screening information from a healthcare provider (57.5%); however, only 20% reported that a provider had initiated a screening conversation.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified age-specific barriers to CRC screening and tailored messaging to motivate participation among unscreened Black people age ≥ 45. Findings informed the development of the NCCRT and ACS guidebook for organizations and institutions aiming to increase CRC screening participation in Black individuals.

Priority of the basic and instrumental activities of daily living in older patients with cancer prescribed rehabilitation: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

There is no information on whether vulnerable older patients with cancer consider basic activities of daily living (BADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) important outcomes. Our survey aimed to investigate the priority of BADL and IADL in outcomes among vulnerable older patients with cancer.

METHODS

This was a single-center survey in a Japanese cancer center. Eligible patients were ≥ 65 years of age and were prescribed in-hospital rehabilitation while under cancer treatment. Using original self-administered ranking questionnaires, patients were asked to rank outcomes and subdomain of BADL and IADL. High-priority domains were defined as the highest, second-highest, and third-highest priority domains in individuals.

RESULTS

A total of 169 patients were analyzed. The mean age was 74.0 years (standard deviation, 5.1 years) and the number of males was 107 (63%). The order of ranking of high-priority outcomes was BADL and IADL (n = 155), cognitive function (n = 91), mental function (n = 82), nutrition (n = 61), social function (n = 51), comorbidity (n = 39), and life span (n = 28). The top three high-priority independence subdomains of BADL and IADL were toilet use (n = 140), feeding (n = 134), and mobility (n = 69) among the BADL and shopping (n = 93), food preparation (n = 88), and ability to handle finances (n = 85) among the IADL.

CONCLUSIONS

BADL and IADL can be considered the most important health outcomes in clinical trials and in practice among older patients with cancer and physical vulnerabilities.

Heterogeneous Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Germany: Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests differ in benefits, harms, and processes, making individual informed decisions preference based. The objective was to analyze the preferences of insurees in Germany for characteristics of CRC screening modalities.

METHODS

A generic discrete choice experiment with 2-alternative choice sets and 6 attributes (CRC mortality, CRC incidence, complications, preparation, need for transportation, and follow-up; 3 levels each) depicting characteristics of fecal testing, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy was generated. Participants completed 8 choice tasks. Internal validity was tested using a within-set dominated pair. Between June and October 2020, written questionnaires were sent to a stratified random sample (n = 5000) of 50-, 55-, and 60-year-old insurees of the AOK (Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse) Lower Saxony, who had previously received an invitation to participate in the organized screening program including evidence-based information. Preferences were analyzed using conditional logit, mixed logit, and latent-class model.

RESULTS

From 1282 questionnaires received (26% [1282 of 4945]), 1142 were included in the analysis. Approximately 42% of the respondents chose the dominated alternative in the internal validity test. Three heterogeneous preference classes were identified. Most important attributes were preparation (class 1; n = 505, 44%), CRC mortality (class 2; n = 347, 30%), and CRC incidence (class 3; n = 290, 25%). Contrary to a priori expectations, a higher effort was preferred for bowel cleansing (class 1) and accompaniment home (classes 1 and 2).

CONCLUSION

Internal validity issues of choice data need further research and warrant attention in future discrete choice experiment surveys. The observed preference heterogeneity suggests different informational needs, although the underlying reasons remained unclear.

Attributes in stated preference elicitation studies on colorectal cancer screening and their relative importance for decision-making among screenees: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The SIGMO study (Sigmoidoscopy as an evidence-based colorectal cancer screening test - a possible option?) examines screening eligible populations' preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in Germany using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Attribute identification and selection are essential for the construction of choice tasks and should be evidence-based. As a part of the SIGMO study this systematic review provides an overview of attributes included in studies eliciting stated preferences for CRC screening tests and their relative importance for decision-making.

METHODS

Systematic search (November 2021) for English-language studies published since January 2000 in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate Edition, LIVIVO and PsycINFO. DCEs and conjoint analysis ranking or rating tasks on screening eligible populations' preferences for stool testing, sigmoidoscopy, and/or colonoscopy were included. Attributes were extracted and their relative importance was calculated and ranked. Risk of bias (RoB) of included studies was assessed using a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Study selection and RoB rating were carried out independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another one.

RESULTS

A total of 23 publications on 22 studies were included. Overall RoB was rated as serious/critical for 21 studies and as moderate for 2 studies. Main reasons for high RoB were non-random sampling, low response rates, lack of non-responder analyses, and, to a lesser extent, weaknesses in the measurement instrument and data analysis. Extracted attributes (n = 120) referred to procedure-related characteristics (n = 42; 35%), structural characteristics of health care (n = 24; 20%), test characteristics (n = 23; 19%), harms (n = 16; 13%), benefits (n = 13; 11%), and level of evidence (n = 2; 2%). Most important attributes were reduction in CRC mortality (and incidence) (n = 7), test sensitivity (n = 7), out-of-pocket costs (n = 4), procedure (n = 3), and frequency (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Health preference studies on CRC were found to have a high RoB. The composition of choice tasks revealed a lack of attributes on patient-important outcomes (like incidence reduction), while attributes not considered relevant for individual screening decisions (like sensitivity) were frequently used. Future studies eliciting stated preferences in cancer screening should apply the principles of informed decision-making in attribute identification and selection.

Values elicitation among adults making health-related decisions: A concept analysis

AIM

To conduct a concept analysis of values elicitation in the context of health care and treatment decision-making and formulate a conceptual definition.

BACKGROUND

Values elicitation is a commonly cited term for an activity to help patients identify values and evaluate their application in health care decision-making, yet it remains ambiguous and difficult to differentiate from similar concepts.

DESIGN

Concept analysis.

DATA SOURCE

Three databases, including PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus, were searched from inception to February 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

Walker and Avant's eight-stage method was used to identify attributes, cases, antecedents, consequences, and empirical referents and formulate a conceptual definition.

RESULTS

The concept analysis identified 3 attributes, 10 consequences, 7 antecedents, and 3 empirical referents. Our analysis defines values elicitation as an intentional process whereby individuals explore their core beliefs, alone or with others, to (1) determine their preference, or a lack thereof, between health or treatment options, and (2) frame decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings have the potential to influence the identification, discussion, and measurement of values elicitation by nurses and researchers across disciplines. Further exploration of this concept is warranted as the literature continues to emerge.

Attributes Characterizing Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests That Influence Preferences of Individuals Eligible for Screening in Germany: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

This qualitative study is part of the SIGMO study, which evaluates general populations' preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in Germany using a discrete choice experiment. Attribute identification and selection are essential in the construction of choice tasks and should be evidence-based ensuring that attributes are relevant to potential beneficiaries and contribute to overall utility. Therefore, this qualitative study aims to identify relevant attributes characterizing CRC screening tests from the perspective of those eligible for screening in Germany.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Individuals aged 50 to 60 were purposively selected. A questioning route was developed and piloted. Four focus groups (FG) (n=20) were conducted (November 2019) with two moderators and one observer each. FGs were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Attributes were deductively assigned based on a priori identified attribute categories, and inductively derived.

RESULTS

Across FGs, 24 attributes (n=293 codes) were discussed, five of which (sedation, inability to work, transportation home, predictive values, waiting time for screening colonoscopy) were inductively derived (n=76 codes). Four attributes identified a priori were not addressed in any FG. The most frequently discussed attribute category was procedural characteristics, followed by measures of screening test validity, benefits, harms, and structural characteristics of health care. The most commonly addressed attributes were preprocedural bowel cleansing, kind of procedure, and predictive values.

CONCLUSION

Newly identified attributes characterizing CRC screening tests from an individual's perspective, and a priori identified attributes not addressed by any FG stress the added value of qualitative research and thereby the importance of applying a mix of methods in identifying and selecting attributes for the construction of choice tasks. This study meets the requirements for a transparent and detailed presentation of the qualitative methods used in this process, which has rarely been the case before.

The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium

BACKGROUND

Collaboration between policymakers, patients and healthcare workers in hospital quality of care policy setting can improve the integration of new initiatives. The aim of this study was to quantify preferences for various characteristics of a future quality policy in a broad group of stakeholders.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

450 policymakers, clinicians, nurses, patient representatives and hospital board members in Flanders (Belgium) participated in five discrete choice experiments (DCE) on quality control, quality improvement, inspection, patient incidents and transparency. For each DCE, various attributes and levels were defined from a literature review and interviews with 12 international quality and patient safety experts.

RESULTS

For the attributes with the highest relative importance, participants exhibited a strong preference for quality control by an independent national organization and coordination of quality improvement initiatives at the level of hospital networks. The individual hospital was chosen over the government for setting up an action plan following patient complaints. Respondents also strongly preferred mandatory reporting of severe patient incidents and transparency by publicly reporting quality indicators at the hospital level.

CONCLUSIONS

A future quality model should focus on a multicomponent approach with external quality control, improvement actions on hospital network level and public transparency. DCEs provide an opportunity to incorporate the attitudes and views for individual components of a new policy recommendation.

Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Evidence from discrete choice experiments can be used to enrich understanding of preferences, inform the (re)design of screening programmes and/or improve communication within public campaigns about the benefits and harms of screening. However, reviews of screening discrete choice experiments highlight significant discrepancies between stated choices and real choices, particularly regarding willingness to undergo cancer screening. The identification and selection of attributes and associated levels is a fundamental component of designing a discrete choice experiment. Misspecification or misinterpretation of attributes may lead to non-compensatory behaviours, attribute non-attendance and responses that lack external validity.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to synthesise evidence on attribute development, alongside an in-depth review of included attributes and methodological challenges, to provide a resource for researchers undertaking future studies in cancer screening.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify discrete choice experiments estimating preferences towards cancer screening, dated between 1990 and December 2020. Data were synthesised narratively. In-depth analysis of attributes led to classification into four categories: test specific, service delivery, outcomes and monetary. Attribute significance and relative importance were also analysed. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research conjoint analysis checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were included at full text. They covered a range of cancer sites: over half (26/49) examined colorectal screening. Most studies elicited general public preferences (34/49). In total, 280 attributes were included, 90% (252/280) of which were significant. Overall, test sensitivity and mortality reduction were most frequently found to be the most important to respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in reporting the identification, selection and construction of attributes used within cancer screening discrete choice experiments are needed. This review also highlights the importance of considering the complexity of choice tasks when considering risk information or compound attributes. Patient and public involvement and stakeholder engagement are recommended to optimise understanding of unavoidably complex choice tasks throughout the design process. To ensure quality and maximise comparability across studies, further research is needed to develop a risk-of-bias measure for discrete choice experiments.

Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment.

Purpose

To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL.

Study Selection

We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods.

Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation.

Data Synthesis

Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ² = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ² = 6.08, P = 0.05).

Limitations

Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories.

Conclusions

Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Public Preferences and Predicted Uptake for Esophageal Cancer Screening Strategies: A Labeled Discrete Choice Experiment

INTRODUCTION:

As novel, less invasive (non)endoscopic techniques for detection of Barrett's esophagus (BE) have been developed, there is now renewed interest in screening for BE and related neoplasia. We aimed to determine public preferences for esophageal adenocarcinoma screening to understand the potential of minimally invasive screening modalities.

METHODS:

A discrete choice experiment was conducted in 1,500 individuals, aged 50–75 years, from the general population. Individuals were repeatedly asked to choose between screening scenarios based on conventional upper endoscopy, transnasal endoscopy, nonendoscopic cell collection devices, breath analysis, and a blood test, combined with various levels of test sensitivity and specificity, and no screening. A multinomial logit model was used to estimate individuals' preferences and to calculate expected participation rates.

RESULTS:

In total, 554 respondents (36.9%) completed the survey. The average predicted uptake was 70.5% (95% confidence interval: 69.1%–71.8%). Test sensitivity (47.7%), screening technique (32.6%), and specificity (19.7%) affected screening participation (all P < 0.05). A low test sensitivity had the highest impact on screening participation, resulting in a 25.0% (95% confidence interval: 22.6%–27.7%) decrease. Respondents preferred noninvasive screening tests over endoscopic and capsule-based techniques, but only if sensitivity and specificity were above 80%.

DISCUSSION:

Our study suggests that individuals generally prefer noninvasive BE screening tests. However, these tests would unlikely improve screening uptake when associated with a much lower accuracy for detecting BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma compared with conventional upper endoscopy. Improving accuracy of minimally invasive screening strategies and informing the target population about these accuracies is therefore essential to maximally stimulate screening participation.

Individuals' Preferences for Esophageal Cancer Screening: A Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVES

The increasing incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and the dismal prognosis has stimulated interest in the early detection of EAC. Our objective was to determine individuals' preferences for EAC screening and to assess to what extent procedural characteristics of EAC screening tests predict willingness for screening participation.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was sent by postal mail to 1000 subjects aged 50 to 75 years who were randomly selected from the municipal registry in the Netherlands. Each subject answered 12 discrete choice questions of 2 hypothetical screening tests comprising 5 attributes: EAC-related mortality risk reduction, procedure-related pain and discomfort, screening location, test specificity, and costs. A multinomial logit model was used to estimate individuals' preferences for each attribute level and to calculate expected rates of uptake.

RESULTS

In total, 375 individuals (37.5%) completed the questionnaire. Test specificity, pain and discomfort, mortality reduction, and out-of-pocket costs all had a significant impact on respondents' preferences. The average expected uptake of EAC screening was 62.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 61.1-64.5). Severe pain and discomfort had the largest impact on screening uptake (-22.8%; 95% CI -26.8 to -18.7). Male gender (β 2.81; P < .001), cancer worries (β 1.96; P = .01), endoscopy experience (β 1.46; P = .05), and upper gastrointestinal symptoms (β 1.50; P = .05) were significantly associated with screening participation.

CONCLUSIONS

EAC screening implementation should consider patient preferences to maximize screening attendance uptake. Based on our results, an optimal screening test should have high specificity, cause no or mild to moderate pain or discomfort, and result in a decrease in EAC-related mortality.

Brief Education and a Conjoint Valuation Survey May Reduce Decisional Conflict Regarding Lung Cancer Screening

Background. Recent data and policy decisions have led to the availability of lung cancer screening (LCS) for individuals who are at increased risk of developing lung cancer. In establishing implementation policies, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services required that individuals who meet eligibility criteria for LCS receive a patient counseling and shared decision-making consultation prior to LCS. Methods. This study evaluated the potential of a values clarification/preference elicitation exercise and brief educational intervention to reduce decisional conflict regarding LCS. Participants (N = 210) completing a larger online survey responded to a measure of decisional conflict prior to and following administration of a conjoint survey and brief educational narrative about LCS. The conjoint survey included 22 choice sets (two of which were holdout cards), incorporating 5 attributes with 17 levels. Results. Results pertaining to changes in decisional conflict showed that participants reported statistically significantly and clinically meaningful reductions in decisional conflict following administration of the brief educational narrative and conjoint survey across the total score (Δ = 29.30; d = 1.09) and all four decisional conflict subscales: Uncertainty (Δ = 27.75; d = 0.73), Informed (Δ = 35.32; d = 1.11), Values Clarity (Δ = 31.82; d = 0.85), and Support (Δ = 18.78; d = 0.66). Discussion. While the study design precludes differentiating the effects of the brief educational narrative and the conjoint survey, data suggest that these tools offer a reasonable approach to clarifying personal beliefs and perspectives regarding LCS participation. Given the complicated nature of LCS decisions and recent policies advocating informed and shared decision-making approaches, conjoint surveys should be evaluated as one of the tools that could help individuals make choices about LCS participation.

Individual decision making about lung cancer screening: A conjoint analysis of perspectives among a high-risk national sample

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is limited information available regarding preferences among high-risk individuals concerning LCS. In this study, we use a conjoint valuation analysis (CVA) to better understand which LCS attributes most affect LCS preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We implemented a web-based nationally representative survey that included a full-profile CVA exercise. Participants were over the age of 45, had at least a 20 pack-year smoking history, and no history of lung cancer. The CVA instrument included five LCS attributes, and additional survey items collected demographic and psychosocial information.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 210) had a mean age of 61 (SD 8.5) years, approximately half were female (51.9%), and were racially/ethnically diverse. Average relative importance of the LCS program attributes was (from high to low): out of pocket costs (27.3 ± 17.7); provider recommendation (24.8 ± 13.4); mortality reduction (17.2 ± 8.9); false-positive rate (15.8 ± 10.4); and ease of access (14.8 ± 7.3). There was large variation among individuals, but few significant associations of propensity to screen with individual demographic characteristics. Average screening propensity across individuals (1-9 scale) was 3.63 ± 1.6, and average rates of individual scenarios ranged from 2.60 ± 2.00 to 5.57 ± 2.13, indicating low inclination for screening.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that overall propensity for screening is low in a high-risk population, and that out of pocket costs were of greater importance to potential screeners than mortality reduction or false-positive rates. Thus, individuals considering or eligible for LCS need additional education and support regarding the LCS landscape in order to achieve informed decision making.

What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a way to assess priority-setting in health care provision. This approach allows for the evaluation of individuals’ preferences as a means of adding criteria to traditional quality-adjusted life year analysis. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify attributes for designing a DCE in order to then develop and validate a framework that supports decision-making on health technologies. Our systematic literature review replicated the methods and search terms used by de Bekker-Grob et al. 2012 and Clark et al. 2014. The Medline database was searched for articles dated between 2008 and 2015. The search was limited to studies in English that reflected general preferences and were choice-based, published as full-text articles and related to health technologies. This study included 72 papers, 52% of which focused on DCEs on drug treatments. The average number of attributes used in all included DCE studies was 5.74 (SD 1.98). The most frequently used attributes in these DCEs were improvements in health (78%), side effects (57%) and cost of treatment (53%). Other, less frequently used attributes included waiting time for treatment or duration of treatment (25%), severity of disease (7%) and value for money (4%). The attributes identified might inform future DCE surveys designed to study societal preferences regarding health technologies in order to better inform decisions in health technology assessment.

The Feasibility and Usability of a Ranking Tool to Elicit Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Trigger Finger

PURPOSE

Shared decision making is an approach where physicians and patients collaborate to make decisions based on patient values. This requires eliciting patients' preferences for each treatment attribute before making decisions; a structured process for preference elicitation does not exist in hand surgery. We tested the feasibility and usability of a ranking tool to elicit patient preferences for the treatment of trigger finger. We hypothesized that the tool would be usable and feasible at the point of care.

METHODS

Thirty patients with a trigger finger without prior treatment were recruited from a hand surgery clinic. A preference elicitation tool was created that presented 3 treatment options (surgical release, injection, and therapy and orthosis) and described attributes of each treatment extracted from literature review (eg, success rate, complications). We presented these attributes to patients using the tool and patients ranked the relative importance (preference) of these attributes to aid in their decision making. The System Usability Scale and tool completion time were used to evaluate usability and feasibility, respectively.

RESULTS

The tool demonstrated excellent usability (System Usability Scale: 88.7). The mean completion time was 3.05 minutes. Five (16.7%) patients chose surgery, 20 (66.7%) chose an injection, and 5 (16.7%) chose therapy and orthosis. Patients ranked treatment success and cost as the most and least important attributes, respectively. Twenty-nine (96.7%) patients were very to extremely satisfied with the tool.

CONCLUSIONS

A preference elicitation tool for patients to rank treatment attributes by relative importance is feasible and usable at the point of care. A structured process for preference elicitation ensures that patients understand the trade-offs between choices and can assist physicians in aligning treatment decisions with patient preferences.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A ranking tool is a simple, structured process physicians can use to elicit preferences during shared decision making and highlight trade-offs between treatment options to inform treatment choices.

A choice experiment to identify the most important elements of a successful cancer screening program according to those who research and manage such programs

PURPOSE

The relationship between cancer screening activities in Europe and the health systems in which they are embedded varies, with some screening programs organized largely separately and others using existing health service staff and facilities. Whatever the precise arrangements, the opportunity for screening to achieve health gain depends on many elements interacting within and beyond the health system, from an accurate register identifying the target population to a means to ensure and monitor follow-up.

METHOD

A conjoint analysis was undertaken with 66 cancer screening experts from 31 countries taking part in EU-TOPIA (towards improved screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer in all of Europe) to identify priorities for an effective screening program, taking a whole system perspective. Ten attributes, each with two levels, were derived from a review of the literature and consultation with experts in cancer screening. Statistical software generated 12 profiles that were ranked by respondents and analyzed using standard conjoint analysis.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The most important attributes were having up-to-date and evidence-based guidelines, followed by mechanisms for systematic monitoring of screening uptake, having a population register covering all of the eligible population and monitoring long-term outcomes. In discussions about the results, participants argued that quality assurance and adherence to guidelines were important, even though they generated low scores in the experiment. This difference may be due some attributes being interrelated, more wide-ranging or the sequential nature of establishing an effective screening program, with guidelines being the first stage of the process.

Clinical Practice Guideline on Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Individuals With a Family History of Nonhereditary Colorectal Cancer or Adenoma: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Banff Consensus

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) increases the risk of developing CRC. These consensus recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on screening these high-risk individuals.

METHODS

Multiple parallel systematic review streams, informed by 10 literature searches, assembled evidence on 5 principal questions around the effect of an FH of CRC or adenomas on the risk of CRC, the age to initiate screening, and the optimal tests and testing intervals. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to develop the recommendations.

RESULTS

Based on the evidence, the Consensus Group was able to strongly recommend CRC screening for all individuals with an FH of CRC or documented adenoma. However, because most of the evidence was very-low quality, the majority of the remaining statements were conditional ("we suggest"). Colonoscopy is suggested (recommended in individuals with ≥2 first-degree relatives [FDRs]), with fecal immunochemical test as an alternative. The elevated risk associated with an FH of ≥1 FDRs with CRC or documented advanced adenoma suggests initiating screening at a younger age (eg, 40-50 years or 10 years younger than age of diagnosis of FDR). In addition, a shorter interval of every 5 years between screening tests was suggested for individuals with ≥2 FDRs, and every 5-10 years for those with FH of 1 FDR with CRC or documented advanced adenoma compared to average-risk individuals. Choosing screening parameters for an individual patient should consider the age of the affected FDR and local resources. It is suggested that individuals with an FH of ≥1 second-degree relatives only, or of nonadvanced adenoma or polyp of unknown histology, be screened according to average-risk guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased risk of CRC associated with an FH of CRC or advanced adenoma warrants more intense screening for CRC. Well-designed prospective studies are needed in order to make definitive evidence-based recommendations about the age to commence screening and appropriate interval between screening tests.

Association Between Patient Value Systems and Physician and Practice Attributes Available Online

IMPORTANCE

The relative value of facial plastic surgeon personal and practice attributes is relevant to the broader health care system because of increasing out-of-pocket expenses to patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relative value of specific facial plastic surgeon personal and practice attributes available online from the perspective of patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study consisted of an electronic survey sent to patients by email using choice-based conjoint analysis; surveys were sent between December 2015 and March 2016. Participants had agreed to join email registries to be sent email surveys and promotions at 3 private facial plastic and reconstructive surgery practices. The following surgeon personal and practice attributes and levels were compared: (1) outcome transparency (above average, average, not available); (2) surgical training affiliations (US News and World Reports rankings); (3) online rating site scores (2 [poor], 3, or 4 [excellent] stars); and (4) price ($1×, $2×, and $3× [× = $1500; average cost was set at $2×]).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The relative importance of outcome transparency, surgical training affiliations, online rating scores, and price to prospective patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 291 patients participated for a completion rate of 68%. Outcome transparency was the most valued attribute (attribute utility range = 141; attribute importance = 35.2%). Price was the least valued attribute (attribute utility range = 58.59; attribute importance = 15.1%). Assuming top-tier affiliations and 4-star ratings, share of market (SOM) was 75.5% for surgeons with above-average outcome transparency priced at $3× compared with those surgeons with no outcomes available priced at $1×. Holding price constant at $2×, surgeons with middle-tier affiliations and 2-star online ratings but above average outcomes achieved 48.4% SOM when compared with those surgeons with top-tier affiliations and 4-star online ratings without available outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Facial plastic surgery patients most value surgeons who publish outcomes. Moreover, they are willing to discount poor rating scores and lower-ranked institutional affiliations when outcome transparency is high. This study demonstrates that outcome transparency is crucial in facial plastic surgery markets.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA.

The impact of sample type and procedural attributes on relative acceptability of different colorectal cancer screening regimens

OBJECTIVE

In Australia and other countries, participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using fecal occult blood testing is low. Previous research suggests that fecal sampling induces disgust, so approaches not involving feces may increase participation. This study aimed to determine population preferences for CRC screening tests that utilize different sample collections (stool, blood, and saliva) and the extent to which specific attributes (convenience, performance, and cost) impact this preference.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

People aged 50-74 years completed a survey. Preference for screening for CRC through stool, blood, and saliva was judged through ranking of preference and attributes critical to preference and confirmed via a discrete choice experiment (DCE) where test attributes were described as varying by performance, cost, and sample type. Participants also completed a measure of aversion to sample type.

RESULTS

A total of 1,282 people participated in the survey. The DCE and ranking exercise confirmed that all test attributes had a statistically significant impact on respondents' preferences (P < 0.001). Blood and saliva were equally preferred over stool; however, test performance was the most influential attribute. In multivariable analyses, those who preferred blood to stool collection exhibited higher aversion to fecal (OR = 1.17; P ≤ 0.001) and saliva (OR = 1.06; P ≤ 0.05) sampling and perceived that they had less time for home sample collection (OR = 0.72, P ≤ 0.001). Those who preferred saliva to stool had higher aversion to fecal (OR = 1.15; P ≤ 0.001) and blood (OR = 1.06, P ≤ 0.01) sampling and less time for home sample collection (OR = 0.81, P ≤ 0.5).

CONCLUSION

Aversion to sample type and perceived inconvenience of sample collection are significant drivers of screening preference. While blood and saliva sampling were the most preferred methods, test performance was the most important attribute of a screening test, regardless of sample type. Efforts to increase CRC screening participation should focus on a test, or combination of tests, that combines the attributes of high performance, low aversion, and convenience of use.

Understanding patients' preferences for surgical management of urethral stricture disease

OBJECTIVES

To understand how prioritization of treatment attributes and treatment choice varies by patient characteristics, we sought to specifically determine how demographic variables affect patient treatment preference.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Male patients with urethral stricture disease participated in a choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis exercise evaluating six treatment attributes associated with internal urethrotomy and urethroplasty. Demographic and past symptom data were collected. Stratified analysis of demographic variables, including age, education, income, was conducted using a mixed effect logistic regression model to evaluate the coefficient size and confidence intervals between the treatments attribute preferences of each strata.

RESULTS

169 patients completed the CBC exercise and were included in our analysis. Overall success of the procedure is the most important treatment attribute to patients and this persists across strata. Older patients (≥65) express preferences for better success rates and fewer future procedures, whereas younger patients prefer a less invasive approach and are more willing to accept additional procedures if needed. Patients with lower levels of education preferred open reconstruction and had a stronger preference against multiple future procedures, whereas those with higher levels of education preferred endoscopic treatment and had a less strong preference against multiple future procedures. Low-income individuals express statistically significant stronger negative preferences against high copay costs compared to high-income individuals.

CONCLUSION

These results can help to inform physicians' counseling about surgical management of urethral stricture disease to better align patient preferences with treatment selection and encourage shared decision making.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Survey of Preferences in Patients Scheduled for Carpal Tunnel Release Using Conjoint Analysis

Background

This study aimed to investigate the preferences of patients scheduled for carpal tunnel release using conjoint analysis and also introduce an example of how to apply a conjoint analysis to the medical field. The use of conjoint analysis in this study is new to the field of orthopedic surgery.

Methods

A total of 97 patients scheduled for carpal tunnel release completed the survey. The following four attributes were predefined: board certification status, distance from the patient's residency, medical costs, and waiting time for surgery. Two plausible levels for each attribute were assigned. Based on these attributes and levels, 16 scenarios were generated (2 × 2 × 2 × 2). We employed 8 scenarios using a fractional factorial design (orthogonal plan). Preferences for scenarios were then evaluated by ranking: patients were asked to list the 8 scenarios in their order of preference. Outcomes consisted of two results: the average importance of each attribute and the utility score.

Results

The most important attribute was the physician's board certificate, followed by distance from the patient's residency to the hospital, waiting time, and costs. Utility estimate findings revealed that patients had a greater preference for a hand specialist than a general orthopedic surgeon.

Conclusions

Patients considered the physician's expertise as the most important factor when choosing a hospital for carpal tunnel release. This suggests that patients are increasingly seeking safety without complications as interest in medical malpractice has increased.

What is a good medical decision? A research agenda guided by perspectives from multiple stakeholders

Informed and shared decision making are critical aspects of patient-centered care, which has contributed to an emphasis on decision support interventions to promote good medical decision making. However, researchers and healthcare providers have not reached a consensus on what defines a good decision, nor how to evaluate it. This position paper, informed by conference sessions featuring diverse stakeholders held at the 2015 Society of Behavioral Medicine and Society for Medical Decision Making annual meetings, describes key concepts that influence the decision making process itself and that may change what it means to make a good decision: interpersonal factors, structural constraints, affective influences, and values clarification methods. This paper also proposes specific research questions within each of these priority areas, with the goal of moving medical decision making research to a more comprehensive definition of a good medical decision, and enhancing the ability to measure and improve the decision making process.

Use of Conjoint Analysis to Determine Patient Preferences for Surgical Treatment of Urethral Stricture Disease

INTRODUCTION

Understanding patient preferences for characteristics of treatments facilitates patient participation and doctor-patient communication and enhances patient-centered care. Patient participation is especially important for urethral stricture disease, which has no definitive treatment guidelines favoring either endoscopic incision or open reconstruction, making patient preference an important factor in treatment choice. However, to date, there have been no studies assessing factors that patients value when choosing a treatment option.

METHODS

We employ choice-based conjoint analysis to assess patient preferences in the trade-offs of treatment attributes for urethral stricture disease. Male patients undergoing treatment or follow-up examination for urethral stricture disease were recruited through a University Medical Practice. We included 169 patients in the analysis. Six attributes of both risk and benefit were examined: treatment type, success rate, number of future procedures, post-treatment catheter duration, recovery time, and copayment amount.

RESULTS

The treatment success rate was by far the most important attribute. Relative to a 25% success rate (OR = 1) an 85% success rate (OR = 26.72, p<.01) increased patient preference by approximately 27 times. Furthermore, patients are willing to pay a $10,000 copayment to double the success rate from 25% to 50%. Patients demonstrated a strong aversion to time with a urinary catheter. Catheter duration for 1 week or less (OR = .67, p<.01) reduced patient preference by about 1.5 times when compared to requiring no catheter. We also found that patients place low importance on both how invasive the treatment seems and low copayment amounts but are willing to pay $10,000 copayment for an open reconstruction surgery compared with an endoscopic incision procedure.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight the importance of shared and detailed physician/patient discussions of all the risk and benefits of each treatment choice and suggest that conjoint analysis may be helpful as a decision aid to guide discussions with individual patients deciding on a treatment.

Evaluating a Decision Aid for Improving Decision Making in Patients with Early-stage Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Early-stage breast cancer patients face a series of complex treatment decisions, with the first typically being choice of locoregional treatment. There is a need for tools to support patients in this decision-making process.

METHODS

We developed an innovative, online locoregional treatment tool based on International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria. We evaluated its impact on patient knowledge about treatment and appraisal of decision making in a pilot study using a clinical sample of newly diagnosed, breast cancer patients who were randomized to view the decision aid website first or complete a survey prior to viewing the decision aid. Differences in knowledge and decision appraisal between the two groups were compared using t-tests and chi-square tests. Computer-generated preferences for treatment were compared with patients' stated preferences using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

One hundred and one newly diagnosed patients were randomized to view the website first or take a survey first. Women who viewed the website first had slightly higher, though not significantly, knowledge about surgery (p = 0.29) and reconstruction (p = 0.10) than the survey-first group. Those who viewed the website first also appraised their decision process significantly more favorably than did those who took the survey first (p < 0.05 for most decision outcomes). There was very good concordance between computer-suggested and stated treatment preferences.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that an interactive decision tool shows promise for supporting early-stage breast cancer patients with complicated treatment decision making.

Why Wait Until Our Community Gets Cancer?: Exploring CRC Screening Barriers and Facilitators in the Spanish-Speaking Community in North Carolina

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of death among Hispanics in the United States. Despite the benefits of CRC screening, many Hispanics are not being screened. Using a combined methodology of focus groups and discrete choice experiment (DCE) surveys, the objectives for this research were as follows: (1) to improve understanding of preferences regarding potential CRC screening program characteristics, and (2) to improve understanding of the barriers and facilitators around CRC screening with the Hispanic, immigrant community in North Carolina. Four gender-stratified focus groups were conducted and DCE surveys were administered to 38 Spanish-speaking individuals across four counties in North Carolina. In-depth content analysis was used to examine the focus group data; descriptive analyses and mean attribute importance scores for cost of screening and follow-up care, travel time, and test options were calculated from DCE data. Data analyses showed that this population has a strong interest in CRC screening but experience barriers such as lack of access to resources, cost uncertainty, and stigma. Some of these barriers are unique to their cultural experiences in the United States, such as an expressed lack of tailored CRC information. Based on the DCE, cost variables were more important than testing options or travel time. This study suggests that Hispanics may have a general awareness of and interest in CRC screening, but multiple barriers prevent them from getting screened. Special attention should be given to designing culturally and linguistically appropriate programs to improve access to healthcare resources, insurance, and associated costs among Hispanics.

Measuring patients' priorities using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in comparison with Best-Worst-Scaling and rating cards: methodological aspects and ranking tasks

BACKGROUND

Identifying patient priorities and preference measurements have gained importance as patients claim a more active role in health care decision making. Due to the variety of existing methods, it is challenging to define an appropriate method for each decision problem. This study demonstrates the impact of the non-standardized Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method on priorities, and compares it with Best-Worst-Scaling (BWS) and ranking card methods.

METHODS

We investigated AHP results for different Consistency Ratio (CR) thresholds, aggregation methods, and sensitivity analyses. We also compared criteria rankings of AHP with BWS and ranking cards results by Kendall's tau b.

RESULTS

The sample for our decision analysis consisted of 39 patients with rare diseases and mean age of 53.82 years. The mean weights of the two groups of CR ≤ 0.1 and CR ≤ 0.2 did not differ significantly. For the aggregation by individual priority (AIP) method, the CR was higher than for aggregation by individual judgment (AIJ). In contrast, the weights of AIJ were similar compared to AIP, but some criteria's rankings differed. Weights aggregated by geometric mean, median, and mean showed deviating results and rank reversals. Sensitivity analyses showed instable rankings. Moderate to high correlations between the rankings resulting from AHP and BWS.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations were the small sample size and the heterogeneity of the patients with different rare diseases.

CONCLUSION

In the AHP method, the number of included patients is associated with the threshold of the CR and choice of the aggregation method, whereas both directions of influence could be demonstrated. Therefore, it is important to implement standards for the AHP method. The choice of method should depend on the trade-off between the burden for participants and possibilities for analyses.

Effects of Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods

Background. Diverse values clarification methods exist. It is important to understand which, if any, of their design features help people clarify values relevant to a health decision. Purpose. To explore the effects of design features of explicit values clarification methods on outcomes including decisional conflict, values congruence, and decisional regret. Data Sources. MEDLINE, all EBM Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, manual search of reference lists, and expert contacts. Study Selection. Articles were included if they described the evaluation of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. Data Extraction. We extracted details about the evaluation, whether it was conducted in the context of actual or hypothetical decisions, and the results of the evaluation. We combined these data with data from a previous review about each values clarification method’s design features. Data Synthesis. We identified 20 evaluations of values clarification methods within 19 articles. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous. Few studies reported values congruence or postdecision outcomes. The most promising design feature identified was explicitly showing people the implications of their values, for example, by displaying the extent to which each of their decision options aligns with what matters to them. Limitations. Because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Results should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions. Few values clarification methods have been evaluated experimentally. More research is needed to determine effects of different design features of values clarification methods and to establish best practices in values clarification. When feasible, evaluations should assess values congruence and postdecision measures of longer-term outcomes.

Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990-2013

Introduction

Stated-preference methods provide a systematic approach to quantitatively assess the relative preferences for features of cancer screening tests. We reviewed stated-preference studies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening to identify the types of attributes included, the use of questions to assess uptake, and whether gaps exist in these areas. The goal of our review is to inform research on the design and promotion of public health programs to increase cancer screening.

Methods

Using the PubMed and EconLit databases, we identified studies published in English from January 1990 through July 2013 that measured preferences for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test attributes using conjoint analysis or a discrete-choice experiment. We extracted data on study characteristics and results. We categorized studies by whether attributes evaluated included screening test, health care delivery characteristics, or both.

Results

Twenty-two studies met the search criteria. Colorectal cancer was the most commonly studied cancer of the 3. Fifteen studies examined only screening test attributes (efficacy, process, test characteristics, and cost). Two studies included only health care delivery attributes (information provided, staff characteristics, waiting time, and distance to facility). Five studies examined both screening test and health care delivery attributes. Overall, cancer screening test attributes had a significant effect on a patient’s selection of a cancer screening test, and health care delivery attributes had mixed effects on choice.

Conclusion

A growing number of studies examine preferences for cancer screening tests. These studies consistently find that screening test attributes, such as efficacy, process, and cost, are significant determinants of choice. Fewer studies have examined the effect of health care delivery attributes on choice, and the results from these studies are mixed. There is a need for additional studies on the barriers to cancer screening uptake, including health care delivery attributes, and the effect of education materials on preferences.

Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods

Background. Values clarification is a recommended element of patient decision aids. Many different values clarification methods exist, but there is little evidence synthesis available to guide design decisions. Purpose. To describe practices in the field of explicit values clarification methods according to a taxonomy of design features. Data Sources. MEDLINE, all EBM Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, manual search of reference lists, and expert contacts. Study Selection. Articles were included if they described 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. Data Extraction. We extracted data about decisions addressed; use of theories, frameworks, and guidelines; and 12 design features. Data Synthesis. We identified 110 articles describing 98 explicit values clarification methods. Most of these addressed decisions in cancer or reproductive health, and half addressed a decision between just 2 options. Most used neither theory nor guidelines to structure their design. “Pros and cons” was the most common type of values clarification method. Most methods did not allow users to add their own concerns. Few methods explicitly presented tradeoffs inherent in the decision, supported an iterative process of values exploration, or showed how different options aligned with users’ values. Limitations. Study selection criteria and choice of elements for the taxonomy may have excluded values clarification methods or design features. Conclusions. Explicit values clarification methods have diverse designs but can be systematically cataloged within the structure of a taxonomy. Developers of values clarification methods should carefully consider each of the design features in this taxonomy and publish adequate descriptions of their designs. More research is needed to study the effects of different design features.

Discrete-choice experiments versus rating scale exercises to evaluate the importance of attributes

AIM

To examine the difference between discrete-choice experiments (DCE) and rating scale exercises (RSE) in determining the most important attributes using a case study.

METHODS

Undergraduate health sciences students were asked to complete a DCE and a RSE. Six potentially important attributes were identified in focus groups. Fourteen unlabelled choice tasks were constructed using a statistically efficient design. Mixed multinomial logistic regression analysis was used for DCE data analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 254 undergraduate students filled out the questionnaire. In the DCE, only four attributes were statistically significant, whereas in the RSE, all attributes except one were rated four or higher.

CONCLUSION

Attribute importance differs between DCE and RSE. The DCE had a differentiating effect on the relative importance of the attributes; however, determining relative importance using DCE should be done with caution as a lack of statistically significant difference between levels does not necessarily imply that the attribute is not important.

Decision making and cancer

We review decision making along the cancer continuum in the contemporary context of informed and shared decision making in which patients are encouraged to take a more active role in their health care. We discuss challenges to achieving informed and shared decision making, including cognitive limitations and emotional factors, but argue that understanding the mechanisms of decision making offers hope for improving decision support. Theoretical approaches to decision making that explain cognition, emotion, and their interaction are described, including classical psychophysical approaches, dual-process approaches that focus on conflicts between emotion versus cognition (or reason), and modern integrative approaches such as fuzzy-trace theory. In contrast to the earlier emphasis on rote use of numerical detail, modern approaches emphasize understanding the bottom-line gist of options (which encompasses emotion and other influences on meaning) and retrieving relevant social and moral values to apply to those gist representations. Finally, research on interventions to support better decision making in clinical settings is reviewed, drawing out implications for future research on decision making and cancer.

Older adults' preferences for colorectal cancer-screening test attributes and test choice

BACKGROUND

Understanding which attributes of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests drive older adults' test preferences and choices may help improve decision making surrounding CRC screening in older adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To explore older adults' preferences for CRC-screening test attributes and screening tests, we conducted a survey with a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a directly selected preferred attribute question, and an unlabeled screening test-choice question in 116 cognitively intact adults aged 70-90 years, without a history of CRC or inflammatory bowel disease. Each participant answered ten discrete choice questions presenting two hypothetical tests comprised of four attributes: testing procedure, mortality reduction, test frequency, and complications. DCE responses were used to estimate each participant's most important attribute and to simulate their preferred test among three existing CRC-screening tests. For each individual, we compared the DCE-derived attributes to directly selected attributes, and the DCE-derived preferred test to a directly selected unlabeled test.

RESULTS

Older adults do not overwhelmingly value any one CRC-screening test attribute or prefer one type of CRC-screening test over other tests. However, small absolute DCE-derived preferences for the testing procedure attribute and for sigmoidoscopy-equivalent screening tests were revealed. Neither general health, functional, nor cognitive health status were associated with either an individual's most important attribute or most preferred test choice. The DCE-derived most important attribute was associated with each participant's directly selected unlabeled test choice.

CONCLUSION

Older adults' preferences for CRC-screening tests are not easily predicted. Medical providers should actively explore older adults' preferences for CRC screening, so that they can order a screening test that is concordant with their patients' values. Effective interventions are needed to support complex decision making surrounding CRC screening in older adults.

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

Background

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, particularly for vulnerable populations. Effective intervention programs are needed to increase screening rates. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to learn about how vulnerable individuals in North Carolina value different aspects of CRC screening programs.

Methods

We enrolled English-speaking adults ages 50–75 at average risk of CRC from rural North Carolina communities with low rates of CRC screening, targeting those with public or no insurance and low incomes. Participants received basic information about CRC screening and potential program features, then completed a 16 task DCE and survey questions that examined preferences for four attributes of screening programs: testing options available; travel time required; money paid for screening or rewards for completing screening; and the portion of the cost of follow-up care paid out of pocket. We used Hierarchical Bayesian methods to calculate individual-level utilities for the 4 attributes’ levels and individual-level attribute importance scores. For each individual, the attribute with the highest importance score was considered the most important attribute. Individual utilities were then aggregated to produce mean utilities for each attribute. We also compared DCE-based results with those from direct questions in a post-DCE survey.

Results

We enrolled 150 adults. Mean age was 57.8 (range 50–74); 55% were women; 76% White and 19% African-American; 87% annual household income under $30,000; and 51% were uninsured. Individuals preferred shorter travel; rewards or small copayments compared with large copayments; programs that included stool testing as an option; and greater coverage of follow-up costs. Follow-up cost coverage was most frequently found to be the most important attribute from the DCE (47%); followed by test reward/copayment (33%). From the survey, proportion of follow-up costs paid was most frequently cited as most important (42% of participants), followed by testing options (32%). There was moderate agreement (45%) in attribute importance between the DCE and the single question in the post-DCE survey.

Conclusions

Screening test copayments and follow-up care coverage costs are important program characteristics in this vulnerable, rural population.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0611-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments

BACKGROUND

It is well established that screening is effective in reducing the incidence and mortality associated with colorectal cancer (CRC). National screening programs have been implemented in many countries; however, uptake remains an issue. Understanding patient preferences may assist in shaping screening programs and tailoring information about screening tests.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) of CRC screening.

METHODS

A systematic review of DCEs of CRC screening was undertaken in an average-risk general population. The methodological qualities of the studies were assessed using a standard checklist outlining best practice for conjoint studies.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the selection criteria. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the data and methods. However, in eight studies, attributes describing accuracy and/or clinical effectiveness were reported to be statistically significant. We also found that individuals were willing to trade-off other attributes such as an increased risk of complications to gain greater clinical benefits. Screening was also preferred to non-screening by the majority of respondents, regardless of the test used.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding and incorporating individuals' preferences in decision making is increasingly considered essential in the health field. Data from DCEs can provide valuable insights into the trade-offs individuals are willing to undertake in respect to CRC screening. Such insights can be used by decision makers to identify screening tests that could maximize informed uptake. It is likely that, with better reporting and evolving methodology, the contribution that DCEs can make to such debates will increase.

Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health economics to address a wide range of health policy-related concerns.

OBJECTIVE

Broadly adopting the methodology of an earlier systematic review of health-related DCEs, which covered the period 2001-2008, we report whether earlier trends continued during 2009-2012.

METHODS

This paper systematically reviews health-related DCEs published between 2009 and 2012, using the same database as the earlier published review (PubMed) to obtain citations, and the same range of search terms.

RESULTS

A total of 179 health-related DCEs for 2009-2012 met the inclusion criteria for the review. We found a continuing trend towards conducting DCEs across a broader range of countries. However, the trend towards including fewer attributes was reversed, whilst the trend towards interview-based DCEs reversed because of increased computer administration. The trend towards using more flexible econometric models, including mixed logit and latent class, has also continued. Reporting of monetary values has fallen compared with earlier periods, but the proportion of studies estimating trade-offs between health outcomes and experience factors, or valuing outcomes in terms of utility scores, has increased, although use of odds ratios and probabilities has declined. The reassuring trend towards the use of more flexible and appropriate DCE designs and econometric methods has been reinforced by the increased use of qualitative methods to inform DCE processes and results. However, qualitative research methods are being used less often to inform attribute selection, which may make DCEs more susceptible to omitted variable bias if the decision framework is not known prior to the research project.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DCEs in healthcare continues to grow dramatically, as does the scope of applications across an expanding range of countries. There is increasing evidence that more sophisticated approaches to DCE design and analytical techniques are improving the quality of final outputs. That said, recent evidence that the use of qualitative methods to inform attribute selection has declined is of concern.

A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context

BACKGROUND

Evidence synthesis has seen major methodological advances in reducing uncertainty and estimating the sizes of the effects. Much less is known about how to assess the relative value of different outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To identify studies that assessed preferences for outcomes in health conditions.

METHODS

SEARCH STRATEGY

we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library in February 2014.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

eligible studies investigated preferences of patients, family members, the general population or healthcare professionals for health outcomes. The intention of this review was to include studies which focus on theoretical alternatives; studies which assessed preferences for distinct treatments were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

study characteristics as study objective, health condition, participants, elicitation method, and outcomes assessed in the study were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four studies were identified and categorized into four groups: (1) multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (n = 71), (2) rating or ranking (n = 25), (3) utility eliciting (n = 5) and (4) studies comparing different methods (n = 23). The number of outcomes assessed by method group varied. The comparison of different methods or subgroups within one study often resulted in different hierarchies of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A dominant method most suitable for application in evidence syntheses was not identified. As preferences of patients differ from those of other stakeholders (especially medical professionals), the choice of the group to be questioned is consequential. Further research needs to focus on validity and applicability of the identified methods.

Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia

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.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Comparing 3 techniques for eliciting patient values for decision making about prostate-specific antigen screening: a randomized controlled trial

IMPORTANCE

To make good decisions about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, men must consider how they value the different potential outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of different methods of helping men consider such values.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Randomized trial from October 12 to 27, 2011, in the general community.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 911 men aged 50 to 70 years from the United States and Australia who had average risk. Participants were drawn from online panels from a survey research firm in each country and were randomized by the survey firm to 1 of 3 values clarification methods: a balance sheet (n = 302), a rating and ranking task (n = 307), or a discrete choice experiment (n = 302).

INTERVENTION

Participants underwent a values clarification task and then chose the most important attribute.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was the difference among groups in the most important attribute. Secondary outcomes were differences in unlabeled test preference and intent to undergo screening with PSA.

RESULTS

The mean age was 59.8 years; most participants were white and more than one-third had graduated from college. More than 40% reported a PSA test within 12 months. The participants who received the rating and ranking task were more likely to report reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer as being most important (54.4%) compared with those who received the balance sheet (35.1%) or the discrete choice experiment (32.5%) (P < .001). Those receiving the balance sheet were more likely (43.7%) to prefer the unlabeled PSA-like option (as opposed to the "no screening"-like option) compared with those who received rating and ranking (34.2%) or the discrete choice experiment (20.2%). However, the proportion who intended to undergo PSA testing was high and did not differ between groups (balance sheet, 77.1%; rating and ranking, 76.8%; and discrete choice experiment, 73.5%; P = .73).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Different values clarification methods produce different patterns of attribute importance and different preferences for screening when presented with an unlabeled choice. Further studies with more distal outcome measures are needed to determine the best method of values clarification, if any, for decisions such as whether to undergo screening with PSA.

Patient and Provider Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: How Does CT Colonography Compare to Other Modalities?

OBJECTIVES

Patient and provider preferences toward CT colonography (CTC) remain unclear. The primary goals of this study were 1) to investigate patient preferences for one of the currently recommended CRC screening modalities and 2) to evaluate provider preferences before and after review of updated guidelines.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of ambulatory-care patients and providers in the primary care setting. Providers were surveyed before and after reviewing the 2008 guidelines by the American Cancer Society, US Multisociety Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American College of Radiology.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients surveyed, 59% preferred colonoscopy, 17% fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), 14% stool DNA (sDNA) testing, and 10% CTC (P <0.001). The majority of those whose first choice was a stool-based test chose the alternate stool-based test as their second choice over CTC or colonoscopy (P<0.0001). Patients who preferred colonoscopy chose accuracy (76%) and frequency of testing (10%) as the most important test features, whereas patients who preferred a stool-based test chose discomfort (52%) and complications (23%). Of 170 providers surveyed, 96% chose colonoscopy, 2% FOBT, and 1% FOBT with flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) (p < 0.0001). No providers chose CTC or sDNA as their preferred option before reviewing guidelines, and 89% kept their preference after review of guidelines. As a default option for patients who declined colonoscopy, 44% of providers chose FOBT, 12% FOBT+FS, 4% CTC, and 37% deferred to patient preference before review of guidelines. Of the 33% of providers who changed their preference after review of guidelines, 46% recommended CTC. Accuracy was the most influential reason for provider test choice.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and providers prefer colonoscopy for CRC screening. Revised guidelines endorsing the use of CTC are unlikely to change provider preferences but may influence choice of default strategies for patients who decline colonoscopy.