Comparing 3 Values Clarification Methods for Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision-Making: A Randomized Trial in the US and Australia

PurposeTo compare the effects of three methods of values clarification (VCM): balance sheet; rating and ranking; and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on decision-making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults in the US and Australia.MethodsUsing online panels managed by a survey research organization in the US and Australia, we recruited adults ages 50–75 at average risk for CRC for an online survey. Those eligible were randomized to one of the three VCM tasks. CRC screening options were described in terms of five key attributes: reduction in risk of CRC incidence and mortality; nature of the screening test; screening frequency; complications from screening; and chance of requiring a colonoscopy (as initial or follow-up testing). Main outcomes included self-reported most important attribute and unlabeled screening test preference by VCM and by country, assessed after the VCM.ResultsA total of 920 participants were enrolled; 51 % were Australian; mean age was 59.0; 87.0 % were white; 34.2 % had a 4-year college degree; 42.8 % had household incomes less than $45,000 USD per year; 44.9 % were up to date with CRC screening. Most important attribute differed across VCM groups: the rating and ranking group was more likely to choose risk reduction as most important attribute (69.8 %) than the balance sheet group (54.7 %) or DCE (49.3 %), p < 0.0001; most important attribute did not vary by country (p = 0.236). The fecal occult blood test (FOBT)-like test was the most frequently preferred test overall (55.9 %). Unlabeled test choice did not differ meaningfully by VCM. Australians were more likely to prefer the FOBT (AU 66.2 % vs. US 45.1 %, OR 2.4, 95 % CI 1.8, 3.1). Few participants favored no screening (US: 9.2 %, AU: 6.2 %).ConclusionsScreening test attribute importance varied by VCM, but not by country. FOBT was more commonly preferred by Australians than by Americans, but test preferences were heterogeneous in both countries.

[1]  C. Mathers,et al.  Global burden of cancer in 2008: a systematic analysis of disability-adjusted life-years in 12 world regions , 2012, The Lancet.

[2]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .

[3]  J Austoker,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition – Communication , 2012, Endoscopy.

[4]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Patient Education Materials about the Treatment of Early-Stage Prostate Cancer: A Critical Review , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  MPH Michael P. Pignone MD,et al.  Conjoint Analysis Versus Rating and Ranking for Values Elicitation and Clarification in Colorectal Cancer Screening , 2011, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[6]  P. Maisonneuve,et al.  Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps. , 2008, Gastroenterology.

[7]  Rob Boer,et al.  The MISCAN-COLON Simulation Model for the Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer Screening , 1999, Comput. Biomed. Res..

[8]  Rongwei Fu,et al.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Targeted, Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  Carmen L. Lewis,et al.  Comparing 3 techniques for eliciting patient values for decision making about prostate-specific antigen screening: a randomized controlled trial. , 2013, JAMA internal medicine.

[10]  K. Howard,et al.  A comparative case study of bowel cancer screening in the UK and Australia: Evidence lost in translation? , 2011, Journal of medical screening.

[11]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models , 2002 .

[12]  D. Joseph,et al.  Prevalence of colorectal cancer screening among adults--Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2010. , 2012, MMWR supplements.

[13]  Aileen Clarke,et al.  Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  B. Levin,et al.  Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. , 2008, Gastroenterology.

[15]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[16]  J. Cuzick,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: Overview and introduction to the full Supplement publication , 2012, Endoscopy.

[17]  A. Pieterse,et al.  On the suitability of fast and frugal heuristics for designing values clarification methods in patient decision aids: a critical analysis , 2013, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[18]  K. Howard,et al.  Costs and cost‐effectiveness of full implementation of a biennial faecal occult blood test screening program for bowel cancer in Australia , 2011, The Medical journal of Australia.

[19]  Michael Pignone,et al.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Adults at Average Risk: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  D. Ransohoff,et al.  Implications of New Colorectal Cancer Screening Technologies for Primary Care Practice , 2008, Medical care.

[21]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Clarifying and Expressing Values , 2012 .

[22]  Kathryn A Phillips,et al.  How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. , 2009, Health economics.

[23]  F. Johnson,et al.  Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. , 2007, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[24]  Nancy Breen,et al.  Primary Care Provider Attitudes are Associated With Smoking Cessation Counseling and Referral , 2005, Medical care.

[25]  A. O'Connor.  Validation of a Decisional Conflict Scale , 1995, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.