Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2012
Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2022Pooled it
- Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990-2013.Preventing chronic disease · 2016Pooled it
- Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.The patient · 2014Pooled it
- Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments.The patient · 2014Pooled it
- Supporting community translation of lung cancer screening: A web-based decision aid to support informed decision making.Translational behavioral medicine · 2025Trial
- Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Trial
- Comparing 3 techniques for eliciting patient values for decision making about prostate-specific antigen screening: a randomized controlled trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2013Trial
- Shared Decision Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Article
- Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis-Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- "When I do have some time, rather than spend it polishing silver, I want to spend it with my grandkids": a qualitative exploration of patient values following left ventricular assist device implantation.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Use of a mixed-methods approach to develop a guidebook with messaging to encourage colorectal cancer screening among Black individuals 45 and older.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Priority of the basic and instrumental activities of daily living in older patients with cancer prescribed rehabilitation: a cross-sectional survey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Attributes in stated preference elicitation studies on colorectal cancer screening and their relative importance for decision-making among screenees: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2022Review
- Attributes Characterizing Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests That Influence Preferences of Individuals Eligible for Screening in Germany: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Public Preferences and Predicted Uptake for Esophageal Cancer Screening Strategies: A Labeled Discrete Choice Experiment.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare two techniques for eliciting and clarifying patient values for decision making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening: choice-based conjoint analysis and a rating and ranking task.
methodsUsing our decision lab registry and university e-mail lists, we recruited average risk adults ages 48-75 for a written, mailed survey. Eligible participants were given basic information about CRC screening and six attributes of CRC screening tests, then randomized to complete either a choice-based conjoint analysis with 16 discrete choice tasks or a rating and ranking task. The main outcome was the most important attribute, as determined from conjoint analysis or participant ranking. Conjoint analysis-based most important attribute was determined from individual patient-level utilities generated using multinomial logistic regression and hierarchical Bayesian modeling.
resultsOf the 114 eligible participants, 104 completed and returned questionnaires. Mean age was 57 (range 48-73), 70% were female, 88% were white, 71% were college graduates, and 62% were up to date with CRC screening. Ability to reduce CRC incidence and mortality was the most frequent most important attribute for both the conjoint analysis (56% of respondents) and rating/ranking (76% of respondents) groups, and these proportions differed significantly between groups (absolute difference 20%, 95% CI 3%, 37%, p =0.03). There were no significant differences between groups in proportion with clear values (p = 0.352), intent to be screened (p = 0.226) or unlabelled test preference (p = 0.521)
conclusionsChoice-based conjoint analysis produced somewhat different patterns of attribute importance than a rating and ranking task, but had little effect on other outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.