Public preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests: a review of conjoint analysis studies

Abstract

A wide range of screening technologies is available for colorectal cancer screening. There is demand to discover public preferences for these tests on the rationale that tailoring screening to preferences may improve uptake. This review describes a type of study (conjoint analysis) used to assess people’s preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests and critically evaluates research quality using a recently published set of guidelines. Most primary studies assessed preferences for colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing but newer technologies (e.g., capsule endoscopy) have not yet been evaluated. Although studies often adhered to guidelines, there was limited correspondence between stated preferences and actual screening behavior. Future research should investigate how studies can go beyond the guidelines in order to improve this and also explore how test preferences may differ by important population subgroups.

Keywords::

• barium enema
• colon cancer
• colonoscopy
• colorectal cancer
• conjoint analysis
• CT colonography
• discrete choice experiment
• fecal immunochemical test
• fecal occult blood test
• flexible sigmoidoscopy
• preferences
• rectal cancer
• screening
• stool test

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research under its Programme Grants for Applied Research funding scheme (RP-PG-0407-10338). This work was undertaken at University College London and University College London Hospital, who receive a proportion of funding from the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre funding scheme. The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Notes

Reproduced with permission from [17].