Estimating the preferences and willingness-to-pay for colorectal cancer screening: an opportunity to incorporate the perspective of population at risk into policy development in Thailand

References

• Chalkidou K, Glassman A, Marten R, et al. Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(6):462–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glassman A, Giedion U, Sakuma Y, et al. Defining a health benefits package: what are the necessary processes? Health Syst Reform. 2016;2(1):39–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubois RW, Westrich K. Value assessment frameworks: how can they meet the challenge [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): Health Affairs. 2017. Available from: http://www.healthaffairs.org/do/https://doi.org/10.1377/hblog20170302
   Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Cohen JT. QALYs in 2018-advantages and concerns. JAMA. 2018;319(24):2473–2474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umscheid CA. Should guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences? Amsterdam (The Netherlands): Springer; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Kelson M, Amis L. Patient and care involvement in health technology appraisal: what do patient organisations say? Paper presented at the 2008 HTAi workshop; 2008 July 6; Montreal, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Atkin WS, Benson VS, Green J, et al. Improving colorectal cancer screening outcomes: proceedings of the second meeting of the International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network, a global quality initiative. J Med Screen. 2010;17(3):152–157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuriki K, Tajima K. The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer and the preventive strategy in Japan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006;7(3):495–501.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(5):1570–1595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGregor SE, Hilsden RJ, Li FX, et al. Low uptake of colorectal cancer screening 3 yr after release of national recommendations for screening. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(8):1727–1735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564–2575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garborg K. Colorectal cancer screening. Surg Clin North Am. 2015;95(5):979–989.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faivre J, Dancourt V, Lejeune C, et al. Reduction in colorectal cancer mortality by fecal occult blood screening in a French controlled study. Gastroenterology. 2004;126(7):1674–1680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348(9040):1472–1477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hol L, van Leerdam ME, van Ballegooijen M, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. GUT. 2010;59(1):62–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manfredi S, Piette C, Durand G, et al. Colonoscopy results of a French regional FOBT-based colorectal cancer screening program with high compliance. Endoscopy. 2008;40(5):422–427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vernon SW. Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89(19):1406–1422.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Khuhaprema T, Sangrajrang S, Lalitwongsa S, et al. Organised colorectal cancer screening in Lampang Province, Thailand: preliminary results from a pilot implementation programme. BMJ Open. 2014;4(1):e003671.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benning TM, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, et al. Preferences for potential innovations in non-invasive colorectal cancer screening: a labeled discrete choice experiment for a Dutch screening campaign. Acta Oncol. 2014;53(7):898–908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones RM, Woolf SH, Cunningham TD, et al. The relative importance of patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(5):499–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard K, Salkeld G, Pignone M, et al. Preferences for CT colonography and colonoscopy as diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1146–1152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hol L, de Bekker-Grob EW, van Dam L, et al. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(6):972–980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pignone MP, Crutchfield TM, Brown PM, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to inform the design of programs to promote colon cancer screening for vulnerable populations in North Carolina. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu Y, Levy BT, Daly JM, et al. Comparison of patient preferences for fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy using the analytic hierarchy process. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dam L, Hol L, de Bekker-Grob E, et al. What determines individuals’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(1):150–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Agency for Research on Cancer. Thailand - Global Cancer Observatory [Internet]. Lyon (France): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2018 [cited 2020 Aug 8]. Available from: http://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/764-thailand-fact-sheets.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Saengow U, Chongsuwiwatvong V, Geater A, et al. Preferences and acceptance of colorectal cancer screening in Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(6):2269–2276.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phisalprapa P, Supakankunti S, Chaiyakunapruk N. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of colorectal cancer screenings in a low- and middle-income country: example from Thailand. J Med Econ. 2019;22(12):1351–1361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, et al. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient. 2015;8(5):373–384.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3(4):249–256.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hartung HP, Gonsette R, Konig N, et al. Mitoxantrone in progressive multiple sclerosis: a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2002;360(9350):2018–2025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Cheng Z, Ma Y, et al. Effectiveness of screening modalities in colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2017;16(4):252–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Hollinghurst S, Banks J, Bigwood L, et al. Using willingness-to-pay to establish patient preferences for cancer testing in primary care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. 2nd ed. Madison (WI): Research Publishers LLC; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Medical Statistics Unit, Medical Record Division, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University. Hospital statistical report 2008-2016 [internet]. Bangkok; 2017 [cited 2020 Aug 8]. Available from: https://www.si.mahidol.ac.th/office_h/medrecord/stunit/index4.htm
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In Manski CF, McFadden DL, editors. Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications. Cambridge (MA): The MIT press; 1981. p. 198–272.
   Google Scholar
• Krinsky I, Robb AL. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat. 1986;68(4):715–719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bank of Thailand. Foreign exchange rates [Internet]. Bangkok (Thailand): Bank of Thailand. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 08]. Available from: http://www2.bot.or.th/statistics/ReportPage.aspx?reportID=123&language=eng, October 18, 2018
   Google Scholar
• von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy. 2013;45(1):51–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care: NICE should consider using them for patient centred evaluations of technologies. BMJ. 2004;328(7436):360–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar