Public stated preferences and predicted uptake for genome-based colorectal cancer screening.

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

Department of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology & Technical Medicine, University of Twente, P,O, box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Published: March 2014

Background: Emerging developments in nanomedicine allow the development of genome-based technologies for non-invasive and individualised screening for diseases such as colorectal cancer. The main objective of this study was to measure user preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a nanopill.

Methods: A discrete choice experiment was used to estimate the preferences for five competing diagnostic techniques including the nanopill and iFOBT. Alternative screening scenarios were described using five attributes namely: preparation involved, sensitivity, specificity, complication rate and testing frequency. Fourteen random and two fixed choice tasks, each consisting of three alternatives, were offered to 2225 individuals. Data were analysed using the McFadden conditional logit model.

Results: Thirteen hundred and fifty-six respondents completed the questionnaire. The most important attributes (and preferred levels) were the screening technique (nanopill), sensitivity (100%) and preparation (no preparation). Stated screening uptake for the nanopill was 79%, compared to 76% for iFOBT. In the case of screening with the nanopill, the percentage of people preferring not to be screened would be reduced from 19.2% (iFOBT) to 16.7%.

Conclusions: Although the expected benefits of nanotechnology based colorectal cancer screening are improved screening uptake, assuming more accurate test results and less preparation involved, the relative preference of the nanopill is only slightly higher than the iFOBT. Estimating user preferences during the development of diagnostic technologies could be used to identify relative performance, including perceived benefits and harms compared to competitors allowing for significant changes to be made throughout the process of development.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000055PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-14-18DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

colorectal cancer
16
cancer screening
12
screening
9
user preferences
8
preparation involved
8
screening uptake
8
nanopill
5
public stated
4
preferences
4
stated preferences
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!