ArticleThe patient2018
Colorectal Cancer Screening: Preferences, Past Behavior, and Future Intentions.
Article in The patient, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2022Pooled 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
- Promoting cervical cancer screening participation among Chinese women from resource-limited settings: a multicenter qualitative study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Using College Students to Increase Cancer Screening Behaviors Among Their Parents.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Tailoring colorectal cancer screening: Knowledge, CRC screening acceptability, and practices among Jordanian and refugee populations.Journal of migration and health · 2026Article
- Individual Preference for Fecal Immunochemical Test Options among Younger Adults: A Discrete Choice Experiment.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- Consumer Preferences for a Healthcare Appointment Reminder in Australia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2024Article
- Article
- Willingness to pay for an mRNA-based anti-cancer treatment: results from a contingent valuation study in Israel.Israel journal of health policy research · 2024Article
- Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities Among the General Population in Saudi Arabia.Cureus · 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
- Methodology to derive preference for health screening programmes using discrete choice experiments: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- SPT6 recruits SND1 to co-activate human telomerase reverse transcriptase to promote colon cancer progression.Molecular oncology · 2021Article
- What Factors Influence Non-Participation Most in Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2021Article
- Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit-Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2019Article
- Rab23 contributes to the progression of colorectal cancer via protein kinase B and extracellular signal-regulated kinase signaling pathways.Oncology letters · 2019Article
- Heparan Sulfate Proteoglycans in Human Colorectal Cancer.Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) · 2018Review
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
Abstract
backgroundScreening rates for colorectal cancer are below the Healthy People 2020 goal. There are several colorectal cancer screening tests that differ in terms of accuracy, recommended frequency, and administration. In this article, we compare how a set of personal characteristics correlates with preferences for colorectal cancer screening test attributes, past colorectal cancer screening behavior, and future colorectal cancer screening intentions.
methodsWe conducted a discrete-choice experiment survey to assess relative preferences for attributes of colorectal cancer screening tests among adults aged 50-75 years in USA. We used a latent class logit model to identify classes of preferences and calculated willingness to pay for changes in test attributes. A set of personal characteristics were included in the latent class analysis and analyses of self-reported past screening behavior and self-assessed likelihood of future colorectal cancer screening.
resultsLatent class analysis identified three types of respondents. Class 1 valued test accuracy, class 2 valued removing polyps and avoiding discomfort, and class 3 valued cost. Having had a prior colonoscopy and a higher income were predictors of the likelihood of future screening and membership in classes 1 and 2. Health insurance and a self-reported higher risk of developing colorectal cancer were associated with prior screening and higher future screening intentions, but not class membership.
conclusionWe identified distinct classes of preferences focusing on different test features and personal characteristics associated with reported behavior and intentions. Healthcare providers should engage in a careful assessment of patient preferences when recommending colorectal cancer test options to encourage colorectal cancer screening uptake.
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.