ArticleBMJ open2014
Quantifying public preferences for different bowel preparation options prior to screening CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2022Pooled it
- Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990-2013.Preventing chronic disease · 2016Pooled it
- Bowel preparation in CT colonography: Is diet restriction necessary? A randomised trial (DIETSAN).European radiology · 2018Trial
- Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing.European radiology · 2014Trial
- The effect of animated consent material on participants' willingness to enrol in a placebo-controlled surgical trial: a protocol for a randomised feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2021Article
- Article
- Patients' preferences for GP consultation for perceived cancer risk in primary care: a discrete choice experiment.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Article
- CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials.The British journal of radiology · 2016Review
- Using blocked fractional factorial designs to construct discrete choice experiments for healthcare studies.Statistics in medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCT colonography (CTC) may be an acceptable test for colorectal cancer screening but bowel preparation can be a barrier to uptake. This study tested the hypothesis that prospective screening invitees would prefer full-laxative preparation with higher sensitivity and specificity for polyps, despite greater burden, over less burdensome reduced-laxative or non-laxative alternatives with lower sensitivity and specificity.
designDiscrete choice experiment.
settingOnline, web-based survey.
participants2819 adults (45-54 years) from the UK responded to an online invitation to take part in a cancer screening study. Quota sampling ensured that the sample reflected key demographics of the target population and had no relevant bowel disease or medical qualifications. The analysis comprised 607 participants.
interventionsAfter receiving information about screening and CTC, participants completed 3-4 choice scenarios. Scenarios showed two hypothetical forms of CTC with different permutations of three attributes: preparation, sensitivity and specificity for polyps. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants considered the trade-offs in each scenario and stated their preferred test (or chose neither).
resultsPreparation and sensitivity for polyps were both significant predictors of preferences (coefficients: -3.834 to -6.346 for preparation, 0.207-0.257 for sensitivity; p<0.0005). These attributes predicted preferences to a similar extent. Realistic specificity values were non-significant (-0.002 to 0.025; p=0.953). Contrary to our hypothesis, probabilities of selecting tests were similar for realistic forms of full-laxative, reduced-laxative and non-laxative preparations (0.362-0.421). However, they were substantially higher for hypothetical improved forms of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparations with better sensitivity for polyps (0.584-0.837).
conclusionsUptake of CTC following non-laxative or reduced-laxative preparations is unlikely to be greater than following full-laxative preparation as perceived gains from reduced burden may be diminished by reduced sensitivity. However, both attributes are important so a more sensitive form of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparation might improve uptake substantially.
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.