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

被引:11
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
    Aladwani, Mohammad
    Lophatananon, Artitaya
    Ollier, William
    Muir, Kenneth
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (07):
  • [2] Cancer is a Preventable Disease that Requires Major Lifestyle Changes
    Anand, Preetha
    Kunnumakara, Ajaikumar B.
    Sundaram, Chitra
    Harikumar, Kuzhuvelil B.
    Tharakan, Sheeja T.
    Lai, Oiki S.
    Sung, Bokyung
    Aggarwal, Bharat B.
    [J]. PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, 2008, 25 (09) : 2097 - 2116
  • [3] Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder
    Anwyl-Irvine, Alexander L.
    Massonnie, Jessica
    Flitton, Adam
    Kirkham, Natasha
    Evershed, Jo K.
    [J]. BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2020, 52 (01) : 388 - 407
  • [4] Preferences for cancer investigation: a vignette-based study of primary-care attendees
    Banks, Jonathan
    Hollinghurst, Sandra
    Bigwood, Lin
    Peters, Tim J.
    Walter, Fiona M.
    Hamilton, Willie
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2014, 15 (02) : 232 - 240
  • [5] Assessing Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Prediction Models
    Bhatt, Asha A.
    Woodard, Genevieve A.
    [J]. 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
    Bridges, John F. P.
    Hauber, A. Brett
    Marshall, Deborah
    Lloyd, Andrew
    Prosser, Lisa A.
    Regier, Dean A.
    Johnson, F. Reed
    Mauskopf, Josephine
    [J]. 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
    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
    [J]. 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
    Carr, Prudence R.
    Weigl, Korbinian
    Edelmann, Dominic
    Jansen, Lina
    Chang-Claude, Jenny
    Brenner, Hermann
    Hoffmeister, Michael
    [J]. GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2020, 159 (01) : 129 - +