Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 5/2013

01-10-2013 | Original Research Article

Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Techniques and Intention to Attend: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Authors: J. Marjan Hummel, Lotte G. M. Steuten, C. J. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Nick Mulder, Maarten J. IJzerman

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 5/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite the expected health benefits of colorectal cancer screening programs, participation rates remain low in countries that have implemented such a screening program. The perceived benefits and risks of the colorectal cancer screening technique are likely to influence the decision to attend the screening program. Besides the diagnostic accuracy and the risks of the screening technique, which can affect the health of the participants, additional factors, such as the burden of the test, may impact the individuals’ decisions to participate. To maximise the participation rate of a screening program for a new colorectal cancer program in the Netherlands, it is important to know the preferences of the screening population for alternative screening techniques.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore the impact of preferences for particular attributes of the screening tests on the intention to attend a colorectal cancer screening program.

Methods

We used a web-based questionnaire to elicit the preferences of the target population for a selection of colon-screening techniques. The target population consisted of Dutch men and women aged 55–75 years. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a technique for multi-criteria analysis, was used to estimate the colorectal cancer screening preferences. Respondents weighted the relevance of five criteria, i.e. the attributes of the screening techniques: sensitivity, specificity, safety, inconvenience, and frequency of the test. With regard to these criteria, preferences were estimated between four alternative screening techniques, namely, immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT), colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and computerized tomographic (CT) colonography. A five-point ordinal scale was used to estimate the respondents’ intention to attend the screening. We conducted a correlation analysis on the preferences for the screening techniques and the intention to attend.

Results

We included 167 respondents who were consistent in their judgments of the relevance of the criteria and their preferences for the screening techniques. The most preferred screening method for the national screening program was CT colonography. Sensitivity (weight = 0.26) and safety (weight = 0.26) were the strongest determinants of the overall preferences for the screening techniques. However, the screening test with the highest intention to attend was iFOBT. Inconvenience (correlation [r] = 0.69), safety (r = 0.58), and the frequency of the test (r = 0.58) were most strongly related to intention to attend.

Conclusions

The multi-criteria decision analysis revealed the attributes of the screening techniques that are most important so as to increase intention to participate in a screening program. Even though the respondents may recognize the high importance of diagnostic effectiveness in the long term, their short-term decision to attend the screening tests may be less driven by this consideration. Our analysis suggests that inconvenience, safety, and frequency of the test are the strongest technique-related determinants of the respondents’ intention to participate in colorectal screening programs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(4):765–81.CrossRefPubMed Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(4):765–81.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Visser O, van Leeuwen FE. Stage-specific survival of epithelial cancers in North-Holland/Flevoland, The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(15):2321–30.CrossRefPubMed Visser O, van Leeuwen FE. Stage-specific survival of epithelial cancers in North-Holland/Flevoland, The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(15):2321–30.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Brenner H. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening—an overview. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2010;24(4):439–49.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Brenner H. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening—an overview. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2010;24(4):439–49.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Dolan JG. Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions. Health Expect. 2005;8(4):334–44.CrossRefPubMed Dolan JG. Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions. Health Expect. 2005;8(4):334–44.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Philips KA, et al. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10(5):415–30.CrossRefPubMed Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Philips KA, et al. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10(5):415–30.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Gupta S. Will test-specific adherence predict the best colorectal cancer screening strategy? Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(5):359; author reply 359–60. Gupta S. Will test-specific adherence predict the best colorectal cancer screening strategy? Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(5):359; author reply 359–60.
8.
9.
10.
go back to reference Hobbs B, Meier P. Multicriteria methods for resource planning: an experimental comparison. IEEE T Power Syst. 1994;9:1811–7.CrossRef Hobbs B, Meier P. Multicriteria methods for resource planning: an experimental comparison. IEEE T Power Syst. 1994;9:1811–7.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
12.
go back to reference Saaty T. Making and validating complex decisions with the AHP/ANP. J Syst Sci Syst Eng. 2005;14:1–36.CrossRef Saaty T. Making and validating complex decisions with the AHP/ANP. J Syst Sci Syst Eng. 2005;14:1–36.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Whitaker R. Validation examples of the analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process. Math Comput Model. 2007;46:840–59.CrossRef Whitaker R. Validation examples of the analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process. Math Comput Model. 2007;46:840–59.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Huizingh EKRE, Vrolijk HCJ. Extending the applicability of the analytic hierarchy process. Socio-Econ Plan. 1997;31(1):29–39.CrossRef Huizingh EKRE, Vrolijk HCJ. Extending the applicability of the analytic hierarchy process. Socio-Econ Plan. 1997;31(1):29–39.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Ishizaka A, Balkenborg D, Kaplan T. Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation. J Oper Res Soc. 2011;62:1801–12.CrossRef Ishizaka A, Balkenborg D, Kaplan T. Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation. J Oper Res Soc. 2011;62:1801–12.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Saaty TL. Highlights and critical-points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 1994;74(3):426–47.CrossRef Saaty TL. Highlights and critical-points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 1994;74(3):426–47.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple-criteria decision-making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple-criteria decision-making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Health Council of the Netherlands. A national colorectal cancer screening programme. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 2009; Publication No. 2009/13E. ISBN 978-90-5549-780-5. Health Council of the Netherlands. A national colorectal cancer screening programme. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 2009; Publication No. 2009/13E. ISBN 978-90-5549-780-5.
19.
go back to reference Drossaert CH, Boer H, Seydel ER. Women’s opinions about attending for breast cancer screening: stability of cognitive determinants during three rounds of screening. Br J Health Psychol. 2005;10(Pt 1):133–49.CrossRefPubMed Drossaert CH, Boer H, Seydel ER. Women’s opinions about attending for breast cancer screening: stability of cognitive determinants during three rounds of screening. Br J Health Psychol. 2005;10(Pt 1):133–49.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Lancsara E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811.CrossRef Lancsara E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Cragg JG. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica. 1971;829–44. Cragg JG. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica. 1971;829–44.
22.
go back to reference Dolan JG, Boohaker E, Allison J, Imperiale TF. Patients’ preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(1):59–70.CrossRef Dolan JG, Boohaker E, Allison J, Imperiale TF. Patients’ preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(1):59–70.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Kulin NA, Özdemir S, Walsh JME, Marshall JK, Van Bebber S, Phillips KA. How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? Comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ. 2009;18(12):1420–39.CrossRefPubMed Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Kulin NA, Özdemir S, Walsh JME, Marshall JK, Van Bebber S, Phillips KA. How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? Comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ. 2009;18(12):1420–39.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Salkeld G, Solomon M, Short L, Ryan M, Ward JE. Evidence-based consumer choice: a case study in colorectal cancer screening. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2003;27(4):449–55.CrossRefPubMed Salkeld G, Solomon M, Short L, Ryan M, Ward JE. Evidence-based consumer choice: a case study in colorectal cancer screening. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2003;27(4):449–55.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Montano D, Taplin S. A test of an expanded theory of reasoned action to predict mammography screening. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32:733–41.CrossRefPubMed Montano D, Taplin S. A test of an expanded theory of reasoned action to predict mammography screening. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32:733–41.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Castiglione G, Zappa M, Grazzini G, Rubeca T, Turco P, Sani C, Ciatto S. Screening for colorectal cancer by faecal occult blood test: comparison of immunochemical tests. J Med Screen. 2000;7:35–7.CrossRefPubMed Castiglione G, Zappa M, Grazzini G, Rubeca T, Turco P, Sani C, Ciatto S. Screening for colorectal cancer by faecal occult blood test: comparison of immunochemical tests. J Med Screen. 2000;7:35–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Techniques and Intention to Attend: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
Authors
J. Marjan Hummel
Lotte G. M. Steuten
C. J. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn
Nick Mulder
Maarten J. IJzerman
Publication date
01-10-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 5/2013
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0051-z

Other articles of this Issue 5/2013

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 5/2013 Go to the issue