ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2016
Preferences for genetic testing for colorectal cancer within a population-based screening program: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 7 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Public Preferences for Emerging Cancer Screening Modalities: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Public Preferences for Genetic and Genomic Risk-Informed Chronic Disease Screening and Early Detection: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing.The patient · 2022Pooled it
- Health system interventions to integrate genetic testing in routine oncology services: A systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- Patient preferences for massively parallel sequencing genetic testing of colorectal cancer risk: a discrete choice experiment.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Trial
- Unveiling the immunometabolic landscape of colorectal cancer through PANoptosis-related gene expression.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Developing and assessing a kin keeping scale with application to identifying central influencers in African American family networks.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- Rural job preferences of graduate class medical students in Ethiopia-a discrete choice experiment (DCE).BMC medical education · 2023Article
- A mainstreaming oncogenomics model: improving the identification of Lynch syndrome.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Genomic Testing for Relapsed and Refractory Lymphoid Cancers: Understanding Patient Values.The patient · 2021Article
- Article
- How psychological distance of a study sample in discrete choice experiments affects preference measurement: a colorectal cancer screening case study.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- Women's preferences, willingness-to-pay, and predicted uptake for single-nucleotide polymorphism gene testing to guide personalized breast cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- Comparison of the efficiency of colorectal cancer screening programs based on age and genetic risk for reduction of colorectal cancer mortality.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Article
- Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation.BMC medical genomics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study explored individuals' preferences for genetic testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) in a screening situation and their willingness to participate in genetic testing for Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), and familial colorectal cancer (FCC). For that purpose, 532 respondents aged 55-65 years completed a Discrete Choice Experiment. Using panel latent class models, the preferences for two screening situation characteristics (the probability of being genetically predisposed and the probability of developing CRC) and screening test characteristics (the frequency of preventive colonoscopies and CRC survival) were estimated. Based on these preferences, respondents' willingness to participate in the three screening initiatives was estimated. Lower-educated respondents and respondents who express serious anxiety and worries found colonoscopy frequency and the probability of developing CRC relatively more important and survival relatively less important compared with higher-educated respondents and respondents who express no anxiety and worries. These differences in preferences resulted in opposite preferences for participation in FCC and FAP screening. In conclusion, the general population is willing to participate in genetic screening for CRC. If individuals are suspected of genetic or familial CRC, they should at least be informed about their increased risk of being genetically predisposed and about the importance of participating in all preventive follow-up colonoscopies in order to maximize survival.
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.