Patient and physician preferences among colorectal cancer screening tests: updated predictions from a discrete choice experiment.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
A Mark Fendrick, Mallik Greene, A Burak Ozbay, Quang Le, Joseph W LeMaster, Rajab Idriss, Jeffrey Arroyo, Joseph C Anderson, Michael Dore, Matthew Quaife, Katelyn Cutts, Paul Limburg, Lila J Finney Rutten
{"title":"Patient and physician preferences among colorectal cancer screening tests: updated predictions from a discrete choice experiment.","authors":"A Mark Fendrick, Mallik Greene, A Burak Ozbay, Quang Le, Joseph W LeMaster, Rajab Idriss, Jeffrey Arroyo, Joseph C Anderson, Michael Dore, Matthew Quaife, Katelyn Cutts, Paul Limburg, Lila J Finney Rutten","doi":"10.1080/03007995.2025.2576596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates fall short of national goals. This study aimed to understand eligible individuals' preferences regarding CRC screening modalities to improve screening adherence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two cohorts took a discrete choice experiment survey: adults aged 45-75 years at average risk for CRC, and physicians who recommend CRC screening. Five attributes (test type, test frequency, true positive rate, true negative rate, adenoma true positive rate) from four different CRC screening modalities (cell-free DNA blood test [cf-DNA-BT], colonoscopy, fecal immunochemistry test [FIT], multi-target stool DNA [mt-sDNA] test) were assessed. Test-specific performance was derived from clinical data. Predicted choice probability (PrCP) of each modality was calculated from the results of a mixed logit model. Subgroup analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1,249 adult respondents, mt-sDNA was the preferred modality (PrCP 39.4%) versus colonoscopy (24.8%), cf-DNA-BT (21.1%), and FIT (14.7%). In all subgroups, respondents preferred mt-sDNA. Respondents with previous noninvasive CRC screening experience (PrCP 53.5%) and with no prior CRC screening (42.1%) preferred mt-sDNA. PrCP for colonoscopy was lower for populations historically less likely to be adequately screened for CRC (such as 45-49-year-old respondents [PrCP 21.1%] and non-White respondents [23.1%]). PrCP among 400 physicians was highest for colonoscopy (PrCP 95.0%) versus mt-sDNA (4.3%), cf-DNA-BT (0.4%), and FIT (0.3%). No significant difference in preferences was found between primary care providers and gastroenterologists.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>US adults eligible for CRC screening preferred mt-sDNA testing over other screening modalities, while physicians highly preferred colonoscopy. Offering CRC screening options that align with patient preferences may result in higher screening adherence.</p>","PeriodicalId":10814,"journal":{"name":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2025.2576596","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates fall short of national goals. This study aimed to understand eligible individuals' preferences regarding CRC screening modalities to improve screening adherence.

Methods: Two cohorts took a discrete choice experiment survey: adults aged 45-75 years at average risk for CRC, and physicians who recommend CRC screening. Five attributes (test type, test frequency, true positive rate, true negative rate, adenoma true positive rate) from four different CRC screening modalities (cell-free DNA blood test [cf-DNA-BT], colonoscopy, fecal immunochemistry test [FIT], multi-target stool DNA [mt-sDNA] test) were assessed. Test-specific performance was derived from clinical data. Predicted choice probability (PrCP) of each modality was calculated from the results of a mixed logit model. Subgroup analyses were performed.

Results: Among 1,249 adult respondents, mt-sDNA was the preferred modality (PrCP 39.4%) versus colonoscopy (24.8%), cf-DNA-BT (21.1%), and FIT (14.7%). In all subgroups, respondents preferred mt-sDNA. Respondents with previous noninvasive CRC screening experience (PrCP 53.5%) and with no prior CRC screening (42.1%) preferred mt-sDNA. PrCP for colonoscopy was lower for populations historically less likely to be adequately screened for CRC (such as 45-49-year-old respondents [PrCP 21.1%] and non-White respondents [23.1%]). PrCP among 400 physicians was highest for colonoscopy (PrCP 95.0%) versus mt-sDNA (4.3%), cf-DNA-BT (0.4%), and FIT (0.3%). No significant difference in preferences was found between primary care providers and gastroenterologists.

Conclusion: US adults eligible for CRC screening preferred mt-sDNA testing over other screening modalities, while physicians highly preferred colonoscopy. Offering CRC screening options that align with patient preferences may result in higher screening adherence.

结直肠癌筛查试验中的患者和医生偏好:来自离散选择实验的最新预测。
目的:结直肠癌(CRC)筛查率未达到国家目标。本研究旨在了解符合条件的个体对CRC筛查方式的偏好,以提高筛查依从性。方法:两个队列采用离散选择实验调查:年龄在45-75岁之间的CRC平均风险的成年人,以及推荐CRC筛查的医生。评估四种不同CRC筛查方式(无细胞DNA血检[cf-DNA-BT]、结肠镜检查、粪便免疫化学试验[FIT]、粪便多靶点DNA [mt-sDNA]试验)的5个属性(检测类型、检测频率、真阳性率、真阴性率、腺瘤真阳性率)。测试特定性能来源于临床数据。根据混合logit模型的结果,计算每种模式的预测选择概率(PrCP)。进行亚组分析。结果:在1249名成人受访者中,mt-sDNA是首选的检查方式(PrCP 39.4%),结肠镜检查(24.8%)、cf-DNA-BT(21.1%)和FIT(14.7%)。在所有的亚组中,受访者更喜欢mt-sDNA。既往有无创CRC筛查经历的受访者(PrCP为53.5%)和未进行过CRC筛查的受访者(42.1%)更倾向于mt-sDNA。结肠镜检查的PrCP在历史上不太可能充分筛查CRC的人群中较低(如45-49岁的受访者[PrCP 21.1%]和非白人受访者[23.1%])。400名医生中结肠镜检查的PrCP最高(95.0%),mt-sDNA(4.3%)、cf-DNA-BT(0.4%)和FIT(0.3%)。在初级保健提供者和胃肠病学家之间没有发现显著的偏好差异。结论:与其他筛查方式相比,符合CRC筛查条件的美国成年人更喜欢mt-sDNA检测,而医生则更喜欢结肠镜检查。提供符合患者偏好的CRC筛查选择可能导致更高的筛查依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current Medical Research and Opinion
Current Medical Research and Opinion 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
247
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Current Medical Research and Opinion is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal for the rapid publication of original research on new and existing drugs and therapies, Phase II-IV studies, and post-marketing investigations. Equivalence, safety and efficacy/effectiveness studies are especially encouraged. Preclinical, Phase I, pharmacoeconomic, outcomes and quality of life studies may also be considered if there is clear clinical relevance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信