Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34325701›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Evaluating preferences for colorectal cancer screening in individuals under age 50 using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Travis Hyams, Bruce Golden, John Sammarco, Shahnaz Sultan, Evelyn King-Marshall, Min Qi Wang, Barbara Curbow

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Colorectal Cancer Test Completion among Adults Aged 45 to 75 in an Integrated Healthcare System: A Retrospective Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  2. Shared Decision Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Travis HyamsDepartment of Behavioral and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, USA. Thyams@umd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1015-2708
Bruce GoldenDepartment of Decision, Operations, and Information Technologies, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, USA.
John SammarcoDefinitive Business Solutions, Inc., 11921 Freedom Drive, Suite 550, Reston, VA, 20190, USA.
Shahnaz SultanDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
Evelyn King-MarshallDepartment of Behavioral and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, USA.
Min Qi WangDepartment of Behavioral and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, USA.
Barbara CurbowDepartment of Behavioral and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, USA.
University of Maryland, College Park · USFreedom House · USOffice of the Director · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their recommendation, stating that individuals ages 45-49 should initiate screening for colorectal cancer. Since several screening strategies are recommended, making a shared decision involves including an individual's preferences. Few studies have included individuals under age 50. In this study, we use a multicriteria decision analysis technique called the Analytic Hierarchy Process to explore preferences for screening strategies and evaluate whether preferences vary by age.

methodsParticipants evaluated a hierarchy with 3 decision alternatives (colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography), 3 criteria (test effectiveness, the screening plan, and features of the test) and 7 sub-criteria. We used the linear fit method to calculate consistency ratios and the eigenvector method for group preferences. We conducted sensitivity analysis to assess whether results are robust to change and tested differences in preferences by participant variables using chi-square and analysis of variance.

resultsOf the 579 individuals surveyed, 556 (96%) provided complete responses to the AHP portion of the survey. Of these, 247 participants gave responses consistent enough (CR < 0.18) to be included in the final analysis. Participants that were either white or have lower health literacy were more likely to be excluded due to inconsistency. Colonoscopy was the preferred strategy in those < 50 and fecal immunochemical test was preferred by those over age 50 (p = 0.002). These results were consistent when we restricted analysis to individuals ages 45-55 (p = 0.011). Participants rated test effectiveness as the most important criteria for making their decision (weight = 0.555). Sensitivity analysis showed our results were robust to shifts in criteria and sub-criteria weights.

conclusionsWe reveal potential differences in preferences for screening strategies by age that could influence the adoption of screening programs to include individuals under age 50. Researchers and practitioners should consider at-home interventions using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to assist with the formulation of preferences that are key to shared decision-making. The costs associated with different preferences for screening strategies should be explored further if limited resources must be allocated to screen individuals ages 45-49.

Indexed as

Analytic Hierarchy ProcessColorectal NeoplasmsColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOccult BloodUnited StatesColorectal cancerMedical decision makingMulticriteria decision analysisPreferencesScreening

Identifiers

PMID34325701
PMCPMC8320058
OpenAlexW3183695090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.