IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v11y2018i6d10.1007_s40271-018-0308-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Preferences, Past Behavior, and Future Intentions

Author

Listed:
  • Carol Mansfield

    (RTI Health Solutions, RTI International)

  • Donatus U. Ekwueme

    (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

  • Florence K. L. Tangka

    (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

  • Derek S. Brown

    (Washington University in St. Louis)

  • Judith Lee Smith

    (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

  • Gery P. Guy

    (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

  • Chunyu Li

    (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

  • Brett Hauber

    (RTI Health Solutions, RTI International)

Abstract

Background Screening rates for colorectal cancer are below the Healthy People 2020 goal. There are several colorectal cancer screening tests that differ in terms of accuracy, recommended frequency, and administration. In this article, we compare how a set of personal characteristics correlates with preferences for colorectal cancer screening test attributes, past colorectal cancer screening behavior, and future colorectal cancer screening intentions. Methods We conducted a discrete-choice experiment survey to assess relative preferences for attributes of colorectal cancer screening tests among adults aged 50–75 years in USA. We used a latent class logit model to identify classes of preferences and calculated willingness to pay for changes in test attributes. A set of personal characteristics were included in the latent class analysis and analyses of self-reported past screening behavior and self-assessed likelihood of future colorectal cancer screening. Results Latent class analysis identified three types of respondents. Class 1 valued test accuracy, class 2 valued removing polyps and avoiding discomfort, and class 3 valued cost. Having had a prior colonoscopy and a higher income were predictors of the likelihood of future screening and membership in classes 1 and 2. Health insurance and a self-reported higher risk of developing colorectal cancer were associated with prior screening and higher future screening intentions, but not class membership. Conclusion We identified distinct classes of preferences focusing on different test features and personal characteristics associated with reported behavior and intentions. Healthcare providers should engage in a careful assessment of patient preferences when recommending colorectal cancer test options to encourage colorectal cancer screening uptake.

Suggested Citation

  • Carol Mansfield & Donatus U. Ekwueme & Florence K. L. Tangka & Derek S. Brown & Judith Lee Smith & Gery P. Guy & Chunyu Li & Brett Hauber, 2018. "Colorectal Cancer Screening: Preferences, Past Behavior, and Future Intentions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(6), pages 599-611, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0308-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0308-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-018-0308-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-018-0308-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0308-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.