TY - JOUR
T1 - Perceived Importance of the Benefits and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening
T2 - A Best-Worst Scaling Study
AU - Pluymen, Linda P. M.
AU - Yebyo, Henock G.
AU - Stegeman, Inge
AU - Fransen, Mirjam P.
AU - Dekker, Evelien
AU - Brabers, Anne E. M.
AU - Leeflang, Mariska M. G.
N1 - Funding Information: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Leeflang reported receiving grants from ZonMw during the conduct of the study. Dr Dekker reported receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from FujiFilm and personal fees from Olympus, GI Supply, Norgine, IPSEN, PAION, and Ambu outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Publisher Copyright: © 2023
PY - 2023/6
Y1 - 2023/6
N2 - Objectives: To elicit the relative importance of the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among potential screening participants in the Dutch population. Methods: In a consensus meeting with 11 experts, risk reduction of CRC and CRC deaths (benefits) and complications from colonoscopy, stress of receiving positive fecal immunological test (FIT) results, as well as false-positive and false-negative FIT results (harms) were selected as determinant end points to consider during decision making. We conducted an online best-worst scaling survey among adults aged 55 to 75 years from the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel of The Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research to elicit preference values for these outcomes. The preference values were estimated using conditional logit regression. Results: Of 265 participants, 234 (89%) had ever participated in CRC screening. Compared with the stress of receiving a positive FIT result, the outcome perceived most important was the risk of CRC death (odds ratio [OR] 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-5.1), followed by risk of CRC (OR 4.1; 95% CI 3.6-4.7), a false-negative FIT result (OR 3.1; 95% CI 2.7-3.5), colonoscopy complications (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4-1.8), and a false-positive FIT result (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.3-1.6). The magnitude of these differences in perceived importance varied according to age, educational level, ethnic background, and whether the individual had previously participated in CRC screening. Conclusion: Dutch men and women eligible for FIT-based CRC screening perceive the benefits of screening to be more important than the harms.
AB - Objectives: To elicit the relative importance of the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among potential screening participants in the Dutch population. Methods: In a consensus meeting with 11 experts, risk reduction of CRC and CRC deaths (benefits) and complications from colonoscopy, stress of receiving positive fecal immunological test (FIT) results, as well as false-positive and false-negative FIT results (harms) were selected as determinant end points to consider during decision making. We conducted an online best-worst scaling survey among adults aged 55 to 75 years from the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel of The Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research to elicit preference values for these outcomes. The preference values were estimated using conditional logit regression. Results: Of 265 participants, 234 (89%) had ever participated in CRC screening. Compared with the stress of receiving a positive FIT result, the outcome perceived most important was the risk of CRC death (odds ratio [OR] 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-5.1), followed by risk of CRC (OR 4.1; 95% CI 3.6-4.7), a false-negative FIT result (OR 3.1; 95% CI 2.7-3.5), colonoscopy complications (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4-1.8), and a false-positive FIT result (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.3-1.6). The magnitude of these differences in perceived importance varied according to age, educational level, ethnic background, and whether the individual had previously participated in CRC screening. Conclusion: Dutch men and women eligible for FIT-based CRC screening perceive the benefits of screening to be more important than the harms.
KW - benefit-harm balance
KW - best-worst scaling
KW - discrete choice
KW - early detection
KW - elucidating preferences
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85148351468&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85148351468&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36646279
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.12.015
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.12.015
M3 - Article
C2 - 36646279
SN - 1098-3015
VL - 26
SP - 918
EP - 924
JO - Value in Health
JF - Value in Health
IS - 6
ER -