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

A systematic review of discrete choice experiments in stroke rehabilitation

OBJECTIVES

Existing research qualitatively explores consumer preferences for stroke rehabilitation interventions. However, it remains unclear which intervention characteristics are most important to consumers, and how these preferences may influence uptake and participation. Discrete choice experiments (DCE) provide a unique way to quantitatively measure preferences for health and health care. This study aims to explore how DCEs have been used in stroke rehabilitation and to identify reported consumer preferences for rehabilitation interventions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of published stroke rehabilitation DCEs was completed (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021282578). Six databases (including CINAHL, MEDLINE, EconLIT) were searched from January 2000-March 2023. Data extracted included topic area, sample size, aim, attributes, design process, and preference outcomes. Descriptive and thematic analyses were conducted, and two methodological checklists applied to review quality.

RESULTS

Of 2,446 studies screened, five were eligible. Studies focused on exercise preference (n = 3), the structure and delivery of community services (n = 1), and self-management programs (n = 1). All had small sample sizes (range 50-146) and were of moderate quality (average score of 77%). Results indicated people have strong preferences for one-to-one therapy (over group-based), light-moderate intensity of exercise, and delivery by qualified therapists (over volunteers).

CONCLUSIONS

Few DCEs have been conducted in stroke rehabilitation, suggesting consumer preferences could be more rigorously explored. Included studies were narrow in the scope of attributes included, limiting their application to practice and policy. Further research is needed to assess the impact of differing service delivery models on uptake and participation.

Understanding the Preferences and Considerations of the Public Towards Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Insights From Think-Aloud Interviews Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment

CONTEXT

Risk stratification has been suggested as a strategy for improving cancer screening. Any changes to existing programmes must be acceptable to the public.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the preferences and considerations of individuals relating to the introduction of different risk-based strategies to determine eligibility for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

STUDY DESIGN

Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within online interviews. Nine conjoint-analysis tasks were created, each with two potential CRC screening programmes. The attributes included personal risk of CRC, screening invitation strategy and impact. Participants chose between programmes while thinking aloud and sharing their thoughts. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty participants based in England aged 40-79 years without previous cancer history or medical expertise.

RESULTS

When choosing between programmes, participants first and primarily looked to prioritise saving lives. The harms associated with screening were viewed as a surprise but also felt by most to be inevitable; the benefits frequently outweighed, therefore, harms were considered less important. Risk stratification using individual characteristics was considered a nuanced approach to healthcare, which tended to be preferred over the age-alone model. Detailed personal risk information could be taken more seriously than non-personalised information to motivate behaviour change. Although it had minimal impact on decision-making, not diverting resources for screening from elsewhere was valued. Individuals who chose not to provide health information were considered irresponsible, while it was important that those with no information to provide should not lose out.

CONCLUSION

Risk-stratified CRC screening is generally aligned with public preferences, with decisions between possible stratification strategies dominated by saving lives. Even if attributes including risk factors, risk stratification strategy and risk communication contributed less to the overall decision to select certain programmes, some levels more clearly fulfilled public values; therefore, all these factors should be taken into consideration when redesigning and communicating CRC screening programmes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The primary data source for this study is interviews with 20 members of the public (current, past or future CRC screening invitees). Two public representatives contributed to planning this study, particularly the DCE.

Patient preferences for investigating cancer-related symptoms in Australian general practice: a discrete-choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Striking the right balance between early cancer diagnosis and the risk of excessive testing for low-risk symptoms is of paramount importance. Patient-centred care must also consider patient preferences for testing.

AIM

To investigate the diagnostic testing preferences of the Australian public for symptoms associated with oesophagogastric (OG), bowel, or lung cancer.

DESIGN AND SETTING

One of three discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) related to either OG, bowel, or lung cancer were administered to a nationally representative sample of Australians aged ≥40 years.

METHOD

Each DCE comprised three scenarios with symptom positive predictive values (PPVs) for undiagnosed cancer ranging from 1% to 3%. The numerical risk was concealed from participants. DCE attributes encompassed the testing strategy, GP familiarity, test and result waiting times, travel duration, and test cost. Preferences were estimated using conditional and mixed logit models.

RESULTS

A total of 3013 individuals participated in one of three DCEs: OG (n = 1004), bowel (n = 1006), and lung (n = 1003). Preferences were chiefly driven by waiting time and test cost, followed by the test type. There was a preference for more invasive tests. When confronted with symptoms carrying an extremely low risk (symptom PPV of ≤1%), participants were more inclined to abstain from testing.

CONCLUSION

Access-related factors, particularly waiting times and testing costs, emerged as the most pivotal elements influencing preferences, underscoring the substantial impact of these systemic factors on patient choices regarding investigations.

Meeting the Needs of Patient Preferences in Imaging

Healthcare continues to transition toward a patient-centered paradigm, where patients are active in medical decisions. Fully embracing this new paradigm means updating how clinical guidelines are formulated, accounting for patient preferences for medical care. Recently, several societies have incorporated patient preference evidence in their updated clinical practice guidelines, and patients in their expert panels. To fully transition to a patient-centered-paradigm, imaging organizations should rethink the formulation of clinical guidelines, accounting for patient preference evidence.

Eliciting Older Cancer Patients' Preferences for Follow-Up Care to Inform a Primary Healthcare Follow-Up Model in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Increasing longevity and advances in treatment have increased the cancer burden in the elderly, resulting in complex follow-up care needs; however, in China, little is known about the follow-up care preferences of these patients. This study quantified older cancer patients' preferences for follow-up care and examined the trade-offs they are willing to make to accept an alternative follow-up model.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted among inpatients aged over 60 years with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer, at two large tertiary hospitals in Nantong, China. Preference weights for follow-up care were estimated using mixed logit analysis. Subgroup analysis and latent class analysis were used to explore preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Complete results were obtained from 422 patients (144 with breast cancer, 133 with prostate cancer, 145 with colorectal cancer), with a mean age of 70.81 years. Older cancer patients stated a preference for follow-up by specialists over primary healthcare (PHC) providers ( β = -1.18, 95% confidence interval -1.40 to -0.97). The provider of follow-up care services was the most valued attribute among patients with breast cancer (relative importance [RI] 37.17%), while remote contact services were prioritized by patients with prostate (RI 43.50%) and colorectal cancer (RI 33.01%). The uptake rate of an alternative care model integrating PHC increased compared with the baseline setting when patients were provided with preferred services (continuity of care, individualized care plans, and remote contact services).

CONCLUSION

To encourage older cancer patients to use PHC-integrated follow-up care, alternative follow-up care models need to be based on patients' preferences before introducing them as a routine option.

Preferences for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

OBJECTIVES

Understanding what matters most to patients and their caregivers is fundamental to delivering high-quality care. This systematic review aimed to characterize and appraise the evidence from discrete choice experiments eliciting preferences for palliative care.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken for publications up until August 2022. Data were synthesized narratively. Thematic analysis was applied to categorize attributes into groups. Attribute development, frequency, and relative importance were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare outcomes between patient and proxy respondents.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies spanning 11 countries were included; 59% of studies solely considered preferences for patients with cancer. A range of respondent groups were represented including patients (76%) and proxies (caregivers [35%], health providers [12%], and the public [18%]). A total of 117 individual attributes were extracted and thematically grouped into 8 broad categories and 21 subcategories. Clinical outcomes including quality of life, length of life, and pain control were the most frequently reported attributes, whereas attributes relating to psychosocial components were largely absent. Both patients and proxy respondents prioritized pain control over additional survival time. Nevertheless, there were differences between respondent cohorts in the emphasis on other attributes such as access to care, timely information, and low risk of adverse effects (prioritized by patients), as opposed to cost, quality, and delivery of care (prioritized by proxies).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review underscores the vital role of pain control in palliative care; in addition, it shed light on the complexity and relative strength of preferences for various aspects of care from multiple perspectives, which is useful in developing personalized, patient-centered models of care for individuals nearing the end of life.

Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

As new diagnostic imaging technologies are adopted, decisions surrounding diagnostic imaging become increasingly complex. As such, understanding patient preferences in imaging decision making is imperative.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to review quantitative patient preference studies in imaging-related decision making, including characteristics of the literature and the quality of the evidence.

METHODS

The Pubmed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify studies involving diagnostic imaging and quantitative patient preference measures from January 2000 to June 2022. Study characteristics that were extracted included the preference elicitation method, disease focus, and sample size. We employed the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) checklist as our quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

A total of 54 articles were included. The following methods were used to elicit preferences: conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiment methods (n = 27), contingent valuation (n = 16), time trade-off (n = 4), best-worst scaling (n = 3), multicriteria decision analysis (n = 3), and a standard gamble approach (n = 1). Half of the studies were published after 2016 (52%, 28/54). The most common scenario (n = 39) for eliciting patient preferences was cancer screening. Computed tomography, the most frequently studied imaging modality, was included in 20 studies, and sample sizes ranged from 30 to 3469 participants (mean 552). The mean PREFS score was 3.5 (standard deviation 0.8) for the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights that a variety of quantitative preference methods are being used, as diagnostic imaging technologies continue to evolve. While the number of preference studies in diagnostic imaging has increased with time, most examine preventative care/screening, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding imaging for disease characterization and management.

Factors affecting patient decisions to undergo testing for cancer symptoms: an exploratory qualitative study in Australian general practice

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting to their GP are often concerned their symptoms may be due to cancer. However, there is a lack of evidence on the factors that influence patient decisions to undergo investigation for suspected cancer in the general practice setting.

AIM

To identify the factors influencing patient decisions to undertake investigations for suspected cancer in general practice.

DESIGN & SETTING

An exploratory qualitative, semi-structured interview study of patients attending rural and metropolitan general practices in Victoria, Australia.

METHOD

A purposive sample of 15 general practice patients aged ≥40 years participated. Thematic analysis of transcripts drew on interpretative description methodology and shared decision-making (SDM) theory.

RESULTS

Cancer-related concerns such as 'cancer worry' prompt patients to seek investigations from their GP. Participants prefer that their symptoms are investigated regardless of cancer risk. The perceived 'best test' provides the most reassurance. Trust and SDM enhance dialogue between patients and GPs about diagnostic testing strategies. Deterrents to testing included out-of-pocket costs, waiting time, travel time, and competing work and family demands.

CONCLUSION

There may be a mismatch between efforts to rationalise investigation use and patient preferences for investigation. SDM that incorporates patient concerns, facilitators, and barriers to testing may ensure appropriate and timely investigation of cancer symptoms.

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.

Women's priorities towards ovarian cancer testing: a best-worst scaling study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the importance of key characteristics relating to diagnostic testing for ovarian cancer and to understand how previous test experience influences priorities.

DESIGN

Case 1 best-worst scaling embedded in an online survey.

SETTING

Primary care diagnostic testing in England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

150 women with ovaries over 40 years old living in England and Wales.

METHODS

We used best-worst scaling, a preference-based survey method, to elicit the relative importance of 25 characteristics relating to ovarian cancer testing following a systematic review. Responses were modelled using conditional logit regression. Subgroup analysis investigated variations based on testing history.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Relative importance scores.

RESULTS

'Chance of dying from ovarian cancer' (0.380, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.49) was the most important factor to respondents, closely followed by 'test sensitivity' (0.308, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.40). In contrast, 'time away from usual activities' (-0.244, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.15) and 'gender of healthcare provider' (-0.243, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.14) were least important to respondents overall. Women who had previously undergone testing placed higher importance on certain characteristics including 'openness of healthcare providers' and 'chance of diagnosing another condition' at the expense of reduced emphasis on characteristics such as 'pain and discomfort' and 'time away from usual activities'.

CONCLUSIONS

The results clearly demonstrated items at the extreme, which were most and least important to women considering ovarian cancer testing. Differences in priorities by testing history demonstrate an experience effect, whereby preferences adapt over time based on evidence and experience. Acknowledging these differences helps to identify underlying barriers and facilitators for women with no test experience as well as shortcomings of current service based on women with experience.

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.