Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30271126›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018

The impact of sample type and procedural attributes on relative acceptability of different colorectal cancer screening regimens.

Joanne M Osborne, Ingrid Flight, Carlene J Wilson, Gang Chen, Julie Ratcliffe, Graeme P Young

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

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. A Multiomic Liquid Biopsy for the Earlier Detection of Colorectal Cancer.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Diagnosis ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joanne M OsborneFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia, carlene.wilson@flinders.edu.au.
Ingrid FlightFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia, carlene.wilson@flinders.edu.au.
Carlene J WilsonFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia, carlene.wilson@flinders.edu.au.
Gang ChenFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia, carlene.wilson@flinders.edu.au.
Julie RatcliffeFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia, carlene.wilson@flinders.edu.au.
Graeme P YoungFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia, carlene.wilson@flinders.edu.au.
Flinders University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn Australia and other countries, participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using fecal occult blood testing is low. Previous research suggests that fecal sampling induces disgust, so approaches not involving feces may increase participation. This study aimed to determine population preferences for CRC screening tests that utilize different sample collections (stool, blood, and saliva) and the extent to which specific attributes (convenience, performance, and cost) impact this preference. MATERIALS AND

methodsPeople aged 50-74 years completed a survey. Preference for screening for CRC through stool, blood, and saliva was judged through ranking of preference and attributes critical to preference and confirmed via a discrete choice experiment (DCE) where test attributes were described as varying by performance, cost, and sample type. Participants also completed a measure of aversion to sample type.

resultsA total of 1,282 people participated in the survey. The DCE and ranking exercise confirmed that all test attributes had a statistically significant impact on respondents' preferences (

conclusionAversion to sample type and perceived inconvenience of sample collection are significant drivers of screening preference. While blood and saliva sampling were the most preferred methods, test performance was the most important attribute of a screening test, regardless of sample type. Efforts to increase CRC screening participation should focus on a test, or combination of tests, that combines the attributes of high performance, low aversion, and convenience of use.

Indexed as

Australiadiscrete choice experimenthome stool testpreferencequantitative studyranking

Identifiers

PMID30271126
PMCPMC6154741
OpenAlexW2892218650

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.