Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26203233›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2015

Older adults' preferences for colorectal cancer-screening test attributes and test choice.

Christine E Kistler, Thomas M Hess, Kirsten Howard, Michael P Pignone, Trisha M Crutchfield, Sarah T Hawley, Alison T Brenner, Kimberly T Ward, Carmen L Lewis

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Christine E KistlerDepartment of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA ; Cecil G Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA ; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Thomas M HessDepartment of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Kirsten HowardInstitute for Choice, University of South Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia ; School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Michael P PignoneCecil G Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA ; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA ; Division of General Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Trisha M CrutchfieldCecil G Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA ; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA ; Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Sarah T HawleyDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Alison T BrennerCecil G Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Kimberly T WardCecil G Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Carmen L LewisDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USNorth Carolina State University · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

AHRQ HHS K12 HS019468
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding which attributes of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests drive older adults' test preferences and choices may help improve decision making surrounding CRC screening in older adults. MATERIALS AND

methodsTo explore older adults' preferences for CRC-screening test attributes and screening tests, we conducted a survey with a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a directly selected preferred attribute question, and an unlabeled screening test-choice question in 116 cognitively intact adults aged 70-90 years, without a history of CRC or inflammatory bowel disease. Each participant answered ten discrete choice questions presenting two hypothetical tests comprised of four attributes: testing procedure, mortality reduction, test frequency, and complications. DCE responses were used to estimate each participant's most important attribute and to simulate their preferred test among three existing CRC-screening tests. For each individual, we compared the DCE-derived attributes to directly selected attributes, and the DCE-derived preferred test to a directly selected unlabeled test.

resultsOlder adults do not overwhelmingly value any one CRC-screening test attribute or prefer one type of CRC-screening test over other tests. However, small absolute DCE-derived preferences for the testing procedure attribute and for sigmoidoscopy-equivalent screening tests were revealed. Neither general health, functional, nor cognitive health status were associated with either an individual's most important attribute or most preferred test choice. The DCE-derived most important attribute was associated with each participant's directly selected unlabeled test choice.

conclusionOlder adults' preferences for CRC-screening tests are not easily predicted. Medical providers should actively explore older adults' preferences for CRC screening, so that they can order a screening test that is concordant with their patients' values. Effective interventions are needed to support complex decision making surrounding CRC screening in older adults.

Indexed as

colorectal cancer screeningconjoint analysisdiscrete choice experimentpatient preferencestest attributesvalues clarification

Identifiers

PMID26203233
PMCPMC4508065
OpenAlexW1873635935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.