Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit-Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment

Methodology to derive preference for health screening programmes using discrete choice experiments: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

While involving users in healthcare decision-making has become increasingly common and important, there is a lack of knowledge about how to best design community-based health screening programs. Reviews of methods that incorporate discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are scarce, particularly for non-cancer illnesses like cardiovascular disease, diabetes and liver disease. We provide an overview of currently available applications and methods available by using DCEs in health screening programs, for chronic conditions.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken, where four electronic databases were searched for key terms to identify eligible DCE studies related to community health screening. We included studies that met a pre-determined criteria, including being published between 2011 and 2021, in English and reported findings on human participants. Data were systematically extracted, tabulated, and summarised in a narrative review.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies that used a DCE to elicit preferences for cancer (n = 26) and cardiovascular disease screening (n = 1) programmes were included in the final analysis. All studies were assessed for quality, against a list of 13 criteria, with the median score being 9/13 (range 5-12). Across the 27 studies, the majority (80%) had the same overall scores. Two-thirds of included studies reported a sample size calculation, approximately half (13/27) administered the survey completely online and over 75% used the general public as the participating population.

CONCLUSION

Our review has led to highlighting several areas of current practice that can be improved, particularly greater use of sample size calculations, increased use of qualitative methods, better explanation of the chosen experimental design including how choice sets are generated, and methods for analysis.

Pharmacological Preventive Potential Among Attenders at Vascular Screening: Findings from the VIVA Trial

OBJECTIVE

Findings from the Viborg Vascular (VIVA) trial show a mortality benefit of multi-faceted vascular screening which was mainly ascribed to the initiation of prophylactic medication. However, the pharmacological preventive potential, which exists when individuals have a positive screening test result and do not already use statins and anti-platelet agents, has not been analysed. The aim of this study was to investigate factors associated with a pharmacological preventive potential of statins and anti-platelet agents among attenders vascular screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used data from the VIVA trial screening arm including 25 074 men aged 64-75 years recruited between October 2008 and January 2011. Explanatory variables comprised socio-demographic- and socio-economic characteristics, comorbidities, medication use, and travel distance derived from nationwide registries. Outcomes included a positive screening test result, a pharmacological preventive potential, and attendance. Associations between the explanatory variables and the outcomes were investigated using the chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

The factors most likely to be associated with a pharmacological preventive potential for positive AAA screening comprised age >70 years (odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.51), existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.38-3.57), and use of anti-hypertensives (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09-1.71). For positive PAD screening age >70 years (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25-1.60), living alone (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.14-1.56), low income, COPD (OR 2.13, 95% CI 159-283), use of anti-hypertensives (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.29) or anti-diabetics (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.28), and short travel distance were associated with a pharmacological preventive potential. For combined vascular screening, age >70 years, living alone, low income, COPD, and use of anti-hypertensives were associated with a pharmacological preventive potential. Among these subgroups, lower attendance was associated with age >70 years, living alone, low income, COPD, and use of anti-diabetics.

CONCLUSION

Future vascular screening programmes might benefit from tailoring information to subgroups who are more likely to benefit from screening but less likely to accept an offer.