4.3 Review

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

Journal

EXPERT REVIEW OF MEDICAL DEVICES
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 489-499

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1586/17434440.2013.811867

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

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research [RP-PG-0407-10338]
  2. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre
  3. Cancer Research UK [14134] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/F063822/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [G0800808] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. National Institute for Health Research [RP-PG-0407-10338, NF-SI-0611-10008] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. EPSRC [EP/F063822/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. MRC [G0800808] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available