SynthesisThe patient2014
Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments.
Synthesis in The patient, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Assessing women's stated preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2022Pooled it
- What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders.BMJ open · 2015Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of two interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening among females living in the rural Midwest.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2024Trial
- Shared Decision Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Article
- A discrete choice experiment to elicit preferences for a liver screening programme in Queensland, Australia: a mixed methods study to select attributes and levels.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2022Article
- 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
- Methodology to derive preference for health screening programmes using discrete choice experiments: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Article
- Preference for endoscopic screening of upper gastrointestinal cancer among Chinese rural residents: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Attributes Characterizing Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests That Influence Preferences of Individuals Eligible for Screening in Germany: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Patient Preference Studies for Advanced Prostate Cancer Treatment Along the Medical Product Life Cycle: Systematic Literature Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Review
- Article
- Evaluating preferences for colorectal cancer screening in individuals under age 50 using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals.Health economics review · 2020Review
- Public Preferences and Predicted Uptake for Esophageal Cancer Screening Strategies: A Labeled Discrete Choice Experiment.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Preferences for Surveillance of Barrett's Oesophagus: a Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
- Good health checks according to the general public; expectations and criteria: a focus group study.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is well established that screening is effective in reducing the incidence and mortality associated with colorectal cancer (CRC). National screening programs have been implemented in many countries; however, uptake remains an issue. Understanding patient preferences may assist in shaping screening programs and tailoring information about screening tests.
objectiveOur objective was to undertake a systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) of CRC screening.
methodsA systematic review of DCEs of CRC screening was undertaken in an average-risk general population. The methodological qualities of the studies were assessed using a standard checklist outlining best practice for conjoint studies.
resultsNine studies met the selection criteria. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the data and methods. However, in eight studies, attributes describing accuracy and/or clinical effectiveness were reported to be statistically significant. We also found that individuals were willing to trade-off other attributes such as an increased risk of complications to gain greater clinical benefits. Screening was also preferred to non-screening by the majority of respondents, regardless of the test used.
conclusionsUnderstanding and incorporating individuals' preferences in decision making is increasingly considered essential in the health field. Data from DCEs can provide valuable insights into the trade-offs individuals are willing to undertake in respect to CRC screening. Such insights can be used by decision makers to identify screening tests that could maximize informed uptake. It is likely that, with better reporting and evolving methodology, the contribution that DCEs can make to such debates will increase.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24652475What 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.