Patient-rated importance of key information on screening colonoscopy in Germany: a survey of statutory health insurance members

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 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.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Have We Addressed Concerns and Needs of the Target Population?

Despite the recognized benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, uptake is still suboptimal in many countries. In addressing this issue, one important element that has not received sufficient attention is population preference. Our review provides a comprehensive summary of the up-to-date evidence relative to this topic. Four OVID databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, and Global Health. Among the 742 articles generated, 154 full texts were selected for a more thorough evaluation based on predefined inclusion criteria. Finally, 83 studies were included in our review. The general population preferred either colonoscopy as the most accurate test, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as the least invasive for CRC screening. The emerging blood test (SEPT9) and capsule colonoscopy (nanopill), with the potential to overcome the pitfalls of the available techniques, were also favored. Gender, age, race, screening experience, education and beliefs, the perceived risk of CRC, insurance, and health status influence one’s test preference. To improve uptake, CRC screening programs should consider offering test alternatives and tailoring the content and delivery of screening information to the public’s preferences. Other logistical measures in terms of the types of bowel preparation, gender of endoscopist, stool collection device, and reward for participants can also be useful.

Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening

In recommending and offering screening, health services make a health claim ('it's good for you'). This article considers ethical aspects of establishing the case for cancer screening, building a service programme, monitoring its operation, improving its quality and integrating it with medical progress. The value of (first) screening is derived as a function of key parameters: prevalence of the target lesion in the detectable pre-clinical phase, the validity of the test and the respective net utilities or values attributed to four health states-true positives, false positives, false negatives and true negatives. Decision makers as diverse as public regulatory agencies, medical associations, health insurance funds or individual screenees can legitimately come up with different values even when presented with the same evidence base. The main intended benefit of screening is the reduction of cause-specific mortality. All-cause mortality is not measurably affected. Overdiagnosis and false-positive tests with their sequelae are the main harms. Harms and benefits accrue to distinct individuals. Hence the health claim is an invitation to a lottery with benefits for few and harms to many, a violation of the non-maleficence principle. While a public decision maker may still propose a justified screening programme, respect for individual rights and values requires preference-sensitive, autonomy-enhancing educational materials-even at the expense of programme effectiveness. Opt-in recommendations and more 'consumer-oriented' qualitative research are needed.

[Informed choice in breast cancer screening: the role of education]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of receiving information about the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening in informed choice, according to educational level.

METHOD

Secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled study, in four screening programs, in Catalonia and the Canary Islands (Spain). We analyzed 400 women who were going to be invited to participate for the first time. The intervention group received a decision aid that showed the benefits and harms of screening. The control group received a standard brochure that recommended participating in the screening program. Educational level was grouped into two categories, low and high. The primary outcome was informed choice defined as adequate knowledge and consistency between attitudes and intentions.

RESULTS

The intervention produced a greater increase in knowledge in women with a high educational level compared to those with a lower educational level. Among women who received the intervention, informed choice was almost three times higher in those with a high educational level (27% versus 11%). No differences were observed between educational levels in decisional conflict, confidence in the decision, anxiety and worry about breast cancer, in the intervention and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision aid for breast cancer screening had much more impact on informed choice among women with a high educational level. In women with low educational level, the attitude towards screening improved and there was an increase in the intention to be screened.