Public Preferences for Determining Eligibility for Screening in Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening Programs: A Discrete Choice Experiment

被引:15
作者
Dennison, Rebecca A. [1 ,6 ]
Taylor, Lily C. [1 ]
Morris, Stephen [1 ,4 ]
Boscott, Rachel A. [2 ]
Harrison, Hannah [3 ]
Moorthie, Sowmiya A.
Rossi, Sabrina H. [5 ]
Stewart, Grant D. [5 ]
Usher-Smith, Juliet A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cambridge, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Primary Care Unit, Cambridge, England
[2] Univ Cambridge, Sch Clin Med, Cambridge, England
[3] Univ Cambridge, Ctr Canc Genet Epidemiol, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Cambridge, England
[4] Univ Cambridge, PHG Fdn, Cambridge, England
[5] Univ Cambridge, Dept Surg, Cambridge, England
[6] Univ Cambridge, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Primary Care Unit, East Forvie Bldg, Cambridge CB2 0SR, England
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
discrete choice experiment; population survey; public acceptability; cancer screening; health policy; risk factors;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X231155790
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. Risk stratification has been proposed to improve the efficiency of population-level cancer screening. We aimed to describe and quantify the relative importance of different attributes of potential screening programs among the public, focusing on stratifying eligibility. Methods. We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which respondents selected between 2 hypothetical screening programs in a series of 9 questions. We presented the risk factors used to determine eligibility (age, sex, or lifestyle or genetic risk scores) and anticipated outcomes based on eligibility criteria with different sensitivity and specificity levels. We performed conditional logit regression models and used the results to estimate preferences for different approaches. We also analyzed free-text comments on respondents' views on the programs. Results. A total of 1,172 respondents completed the survey. Sensitivity was the most important attribute (7 and 11 times more important than specificity and risk factors, respectively). Eligibility criteria based on age and sex or genetics were preferred over age alone and lifestyle risk scores. Phenotypic and polygenic risk prediction models would be more acceptable than screening everyone aged 55 to 70 y if they had high discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve >= 0.75 and 0.80, respectively). Limitations. Although our sample was representative with respect to age, sex, and ethnicity, it may not be representative of the UK population regarding other important characteristics. Also, some respondents may have not understood all the information provided to inform decision making. Conclusions. The public prioritized lives saved from cancer over reductions in numbers screened or experiencing unnecessary follow-up. Incorporating personal-level risk factors into screening eligibility criteria is acceptable to the public if it increases sensitivity; therefore, maximizing sensitivity in model development and communication could increase uptake.
引用
收藏
页码:374 / 386
页数:13
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]   Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review [J].
Aladwani, Mohammad ;
Lophatananon, Artitaya ;
Ollier, William ;
Muir, Kenneth .
BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (07)
[2]   Cancer is a Preventable Disease that Requires Major Lifestyle Changes [J].
Anand, Preetha ;
Kunnumakara, Ajaikumar B. ;
Sundaram, Chitra ;
Harikumar, Kuzhuvelil B. ;
Tharakan, Sheeja T. ;
Lai, Oiki S. ;
Sung, Bokyung ;
Aggarwal, Bharat B. .
PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, 2008, 25 (09) :2097-2116
[3]   Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder [J].
Anwyl-Irvine, Alexander L. ;
Massonnie, Jessica ;
Flitton, Adam ;
Kirkham, Natasha ;
Evershed, Jo K. .
BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2020, 52 (01) :388-407
[4]   Preferences for cancer investigation: a vignette-based study of primary-care attendees [J].
Banks, Jonathan ;
Hollinghurst, Sandra ;
Bigwood, Lin ;
Peters, Tim J. ;
Walter, Fiona M. ;
Hamilton, Willie .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2014, 15 (02) :232-240
[5]   Assessing Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Prediction Models [J].
Bhatt, Asha A. ;
Woodard, Genevieve A. .
JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING, 2021, 3 (02) :144-155
[6]   Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health-a Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force [J].
Bridges, John F. P. ;
Hauber, A. Brett ;
Marshall, Deborah ;
Lloyd, Andrew ;
Prosser, Lisa A. ;
Regier, Dean A. ;
Johnson, F. Reed ;
Mauskopf, Josephine .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (04) :403-413
[7]   The fraction of cancer attributable to modifiable risk factors in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom in 2015 [J].
Brown, Katrina F. ;
Rumgay, Harriet ;
Dunlop, Casey ;
Ryan, Margaret ;
Quartly, Frances ;
Cox, Alison ;
Deas, Andrew ;
Elliss-Brookes, Lucy ;
Gavin, Anna ;
Hounsome, Luke ;
Huws, Dyfed ;
Ormiston-Smith, Nick ;
Shelton, Jon ;
White, Ceri ;
Parkin, D. Max .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2018, 118 (08) :1130-1141
[8]  
Cancer Research UK, STAT CANC TYP
[9]  
Cancer Research UK, LUNG HLTH CHECKS
[10]   Estimation of Absolute Risk of Colorectal Cancer Based on Healthy Lifestyle, Genetic Risk, and Colonoscopy Status in a Population-Based Study [J].
Carr, Prudence R. ;
Weigl, Korbinian ;
Edelmann, Dominic ;
Jansen, Lina ;
Chang-Claude, Jenny ;
Brenner, Hermann ;
Hoffmeister, Michael .
GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2020, 159 (01) :129-+