Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 5/2015

01-10-2015 | Original Research Article

Measuring the Preferences of Homeless Women for Cervical Cancer Screening Interventions: Development of a Best–Worst Scaling Survey

Authors: Eve Wittenberg, Monica Bharel, Adrianna Saada, Emely Santiago, John F. P. Bridges, Linda Weinreb

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 5/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Despite having multiple risk factors, women experiencing homelessness are screened for cervical cancer at a lower rate than women in the general US population. We report on the design of a stated preference study to assess homeless women’s preferences for cervical cancer screening interventions, to inform efforts to overcome this disparity.

Methods

We conducted focus groups with homeless women (n = 8) on cervical cancer screening decisions and analyzed the data using thematic analysis. We applied inclusion criteria to select factors for a stated preference survey: importance to women, relevance to providers, feasibility, and consistency with clinical experience. We conducted pretests (n = 35) to assess survey procedures (functionality, recruitment, administration) and content (understanding, comprehension, wording/language, length).

Results

We chose best–worst scaling (BWS)—also known as object scaling—to identify decision-relevant screening intervention factors. We chose an experimental design with 11 “objects” (i.e., factors relevant to women’s screening decision) presented in 11 subsets of five objects each. Of 25 objects initially identified, we selected 11 for the BWS instrument: provider-related factors: attitude, familiarity, and gender; setting-related factors: acceptance and cost; procedure-related factors: explanation during visit and timing/convenience of visit; personal fears and barriers: concerns about hygiene, addiction, and delivery/fear of results; and a general factor of feeling overwhelmed.

Conclusion

Good practices for the development of stated preference surveys include considered assessment of the experimental design that is used and the preference factors that are included, and pretesting of the presentation format. We demonstrate the development of a BWS study of homeless women’s cervical cancer screening intervention preferences. Subsequent research will identify screening priorities to inform intervention design.
Footnotes
1
In this paper, we use the term “attribute” to refer to preference components that are used in any stated preference instrument. We use the term “object” to refer to an attribute specifically in the context of best–worst scaling. We use the terms “decision factor” or “component” to refer to the elements that contribute to preferences in a general, nonexperimental context.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Homelessness Research Institute. The state of homelessness in America 2013. Washington, DC: National Alliance to End Homelessness; 2013.CrossRef Homelessness Research Institute. The state of homelessness in America 2013. Washington, DC: National Alliance to End Homelessness; 2013.CrossRef
2.
3.
go back to reference Chau S, et al. Cancer risk behaviors and screening rates among homeless adults in Los Angeles County. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002;11(5):431–8.PubMed Chau S, et al. Cancer risk behaviors and screening rates among homeless adults in Los Angeles County. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002;11(5):431–8.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Weinreb L, Goldberg R, Lessard D. Pap smear testing among homeless and very low-income housed mothers. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2002;13(2):141–50.CrossRefPubMed Weinreb L, Goldberg R, Lessard D. Pap smear testing among homeless and very low-income housed mothers. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2002;13(2):141–50.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Cancer screening—United States, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2012;61:41–5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Cancer screening—United States, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2012;61:41–5.
6.
go back to reference Diamant AL, et al. Use of preventive services in a population of very low-income women. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2002;13(2):151–63.CrossRefPubMed Diamant AL, et al. Use of preventive services in a population of very low-income women. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2002;13(2):151–63.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Long HL, et al. Cancer screening in homeless women: attitudes and behaviors. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1998;9(3):276–92.CrossRefPubMed Long HL, et al. Cancer screening in homeless women: attitudes and behaviors. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1998;9(3):276–92.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Watson M, et al. Burden of cervical cancer in the United States, 1998–2003. Cancer. 2008;113(10 Suppl):2855–64.CrossRefPubMed Watson M, et al. Burden of cervical cancer in the United States, 1998–2003. Cancer. 2008;113(10 Suppl):2855–64.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Downs LS, et al. The disparity of cervical cancer in diverse populations. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(2 Suppl):S22–30.CrossRefPubMed Downs LS, et al. The disparity of cervical cancer in diverse populations. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(2 Suppl):S22–30.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Bharel M, Casey C, Wittenberg E. Disparities in cancer screening: acceptance of Pap smears among homeless women. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2009;18(12):2011–6.CrossRef Bharel M, Casey C, Wittenberg E. Disparities in cancer screening: acceptance of Pap smears among homeless women. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2009;18(12):2011–6.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Gelberg L, et al. Access to women’s health care: a qualitative study of barriers perceived by homeless women. Women Health. 2004;40(2):87–100.CrossRefPubMed Gelberg L, et al. Access to women’s health care: a qualitative study of barriers perceived by homeless women. Women Health. 2004;40(2):87–100.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(4):213–24.PubMed Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(4):213–24.PubMed
16.
go back to reference de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.CrossRefPubMed de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(Pt 4):527–46.CrossRefPubMed Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(Pt 4):527–46.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3(4):249–56.CrossRefPubMed Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3(4):249–56.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Coast J, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41.CrossRefPubMed Coast J, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Bridges JF, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRefPubMed Bridges JF, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Flynn TN, et al. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–89.CrossRefPubMed Flynn TN, et al. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–89.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Potoglou D, et al. Best–worst scaling vs discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(10):1717–27.CrossRefPubMed Potoglou D, et al. Best–worst scaling vs discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(10):1717–27.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):259–67.CrossRefPubMed Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):259–67.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
go back to reference Coast J, et al. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(2):387–92.CrossRefPubMed Coast J, et al. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(2):387–92.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Ejaz A, et al. Choosing a cancer surgeon: analyzing factors in patient decision making using a best–worst scaling methodology. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(12):3732–8.CrossRefPubMed Ejaz A, et al. Choosing a cancer surgeon: analyzing factors in patient decision making using a best–worst scaling methodology. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(12):3732–8.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Guest G, MacQueen K, Namey E. Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc; 2012.CrossRef Guest G, MacQueen K, Namey E. Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc; 2012.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Louviere JJ, Flynn TN. Using best–worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia. Patient. 2010;3(4):275–83.CrossRefPubMed Louviere JJ, Flynn TN. Using best–worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia. Patient. 2010;3(4):275–83.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Burt M, et al. Homelessness: programs and the people they serve. Washington, DC: Interagency Council on Homelessness; 1999. Burt M, et al. Homelessness: programs and the people they serve. Washington, DC: Interagency Council on Homelessness; 1999.
Metadata
Title
Measuring the Preferences of Homeless Women for Cervical Cancer Screening Interventions: Development of a Best–Worst Scaling Survey
Authors
Eve Wittenberg
Monica Bharel
Adrianna Saada
Emely Santiago
John F. P. Bridges
Linda Weinreb
Publication date
01-10-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 5/2015
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0110-z

Other articles of this Issue 5/2015

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 5/2015 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.