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

References

• Levin B, Bond JH. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force. American Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterology 111(5), 1381–1384 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL et al.; PLCO Project Team. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N. Engl. J. Med. 366(25), 2345–2357 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segnan N, Armaroli P, Bonelli L et al.; SCORE Working Group. Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up findings of the Italian Randomized Controlled Trial – SCORE. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 103(17), 1310–1322 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I et al.; UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial Investigators. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 375(9726), 1624–1633 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewitson P, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, Towler B, Watson E. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult (Review). Coch. Database Syst. Rev. 1, CD001216 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• von Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R et al. Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. Int. J. Epidemiol. 40(3), 712–718 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The NHS Information Centre, Screening and Immunisations team. Breast Screening Programme, England 2010–2011 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• The NHS Information Centre, Screening and Immunisations team. Cervical Screening Programme, England 2010–2011 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Power E, Miles A, von Wagner C, Robb K, Wardle J. Uptake of colorectal cancer screening: system, provider and individual factors and strategies to improve participation. Future Oncol. 5(9), 1371–1388 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Shah M, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2011: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J. Clin. 61(1), 8–30 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholefield JH, Moss SM, Mangham CM, Whynes DK, Hardcastle JD. Nottingham trial of faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer: a 20-year follow-up. Gut 61(7), 1036–1040 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weller D, Alexander F, Orbell S et al. Evaluation of the UK Colorectal cancer screening pilot: Final Report (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Khalid-de Bakker C, Jonkers D, Smits K, Mesters I, Masclee A, Stockbrügger R. Participation in colorectal cancer screening trials after first-time invitation: a systematic review. Endoscopy 43(12), 1059–1086 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• The Multicentre Australian Colorectal-neoplasia Screening Group. A comparison of colorectal neoplasia screening tests: a multicentre community-based study of the impact of consumer choice. Med. J. Australia 184(11), 546–550 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Chapple A, Ziebland S, Hewitson P, McPherson A. What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): a qualitative study. Soc. Sci. Med. 66(12), 2425–2435 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghanouni A, Smith SG, Halligan S et al. Public perceptions and preferences for CT colonography or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Patient Educ. Couns. 89(1), 116–121 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health–a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health 14(4), 403–413 (2011).
   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 102(6), 972–980 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nayaradou M, Berchi C, Dejardin O, Launoy G. Eliciting population preferences for mass colorectal cancer screening organization. Med. Decis. Making 30(2), 224–233 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dam L, Hol L, de Bekker-Grob EW et al. What determines individuals’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. Eur. J. Cancer 46(1), 150–159 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawley ST, Volk RJ, Krishnamurthy P, Jibaja-Weiss M, Vernon SW, Kneuper S. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients. Med. Care 46(9 Suppl. 1), S10–S16 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health 10(5), 415–430 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salkeld G, Solomon M, Short L, Ryan M, Ward JE. Evidence-based consumer choice: a case study in colorectal cancer screening. Aust. NZJ. Public Health 27(4), 449–455 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyrd-Hansen D, Søgaard J. Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Econ. 10(7), 617–634 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson R, Orme B. Getting the Most from CBC. Sawtooth Software Inc., WA, USA (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Von Wagner C, Semmler C, Power E, Good A. What matters when deciding whether to participate in colorectal cancer screening? The moderating role of time perspective. J. Appl. Biobehav. Res. 15(1), 20–30 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 18(3), 321–336 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vart G, Banzi R, Minozzi S. Comparing participation rates between immunochemical and guaiac faecal occult blood tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Med. 55(2), 87–92 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitlock EP, Lin J, Liles E et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: An updated systematic review. Evidence Syntheses 65(1) (2008).
   Google Scholar
• de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM et al. Burden of colonoscopy compared to non-cathartic CT-colonography in a colorectal cancer screening programme: randomised controlled trial. Gut 61(11), 1152–1559 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Barbey AK, Sloman SA. Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. Behav. Brain Sci. 30(3), 241–254; discussion 255 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. How making a risk estimate can change the feel of that risk: shifting attitudes toward breast cancer risk in a general public survey. Patient Educ. Couns. 57(3), 294–299 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481), 453–458 (1981).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science 333(6048), 1393–1400 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Power E, Van Jaarsveld CH, McCaffery K, Miles A, Atkin W, Wardle J. Understanding intentions and action in colorectal cancer screening. Ann. Behav. Med. 35(3), 285–294 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 18(4), 389–401 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inadomi JM, Vijan S, Janz NK et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch. Intern. Med. 172(7), 575–582 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 21(2), 145–172 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheen E. Supreme Court review of the Affordable Care Act: the future of health care reform and practice of gastroenterology. Dig. Dis. Sci. 57(7), 1735–1741 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Sieg A. Colon capsule endoscopy compared with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasms. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 8(2), 257–261 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar