Men's Preferences for Prostate Cancer Screening: a Discrete Choice Experiment

Overview

Journal Br J Cancer

Specialty Oncology

Date 2013 Jan 31

PMID 23361056

Citations 34

Authors

E W de Bekker-Grob

J M Rose

B Donkers

M-L Essink-Bot

C H Bangma

E W Steyerberg

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Screening for prostate cancer (PC) may save lives, but overdiagnosis and overtreatment are serious drawbacks. We aimed to determine men's preferences for PC screening, and to elicit the trade-offs they make.

Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among a population-based random sample of 1000 elderly men (55-75-years-old). Trade-offs were quantified with a panel latent class model between five PC screening aspects: risk reduction of PC-related death, screening interval, risk of unnecessary biopsies, risk of unnecessary treatments, and out-of-pocket costs.

Results: The response rate was 46% (459/1000). Men were willing to trade-off 2.0% (CI: 1.6%-2.4%) or 1.8% (CI: 1.3%-2.3%) risk reduction of PC-related death to decrease their risk of unnecessary treatment or biopsy with 10%, respectively. They were willing to pay €188 per year (CI: €141-€258) to reduce their relative risk of PC-related death with 10%. Preference heterogeneity was substantial, with men with higher educational levels having a lower probability to opt for PC screening than men with lower educational levels.

Conclusion: Men were willing to trade-off some risk reduction of PC-related death to be relieved of the burden of biopsies or unnecessary treatments. Increasing knowledge on overdiagnosis and overtreatment, especially for men with lower educational levels, is warranted to prevent unrealistic expectations from PC screening.

Citing Articles

What Breast Cancer Screening Program do Rural Women Prefer? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Jiangsu, China.

Sun Y, Wang Y, Zhang H, Hu Z, Ma Y, He Y Patient. 2024; 17(4):363-378.

PMID: 38483691 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00684-9.

The Risk Factors and Screening Uptake for Prostate Cancer: A Scoping Review.

Mumuni S, ODonnell C, Doody O Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(20).

PMID: 37893854 PMC: 10606491. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11202780.

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Menges D, Piatti M, Omlin A, Cathomas R, Benamran D, Fischer S Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023; 51:26-38.

PMID: 37187724 PMC: 10175729. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.001.

Women's priorities towards ovarian cancer testing: a best-worst scaling study.

Hall R, Medina-Lara A, Hamilton W, Spencer A BMJ Open. 2022; 12(9):e061625.

PMID: 36581964 PMC: 9438192. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061625.

Methodology to derive preference for health screening programmes using discrete choice experiments: a scoping review.

Brain D, Jadambaa A, Kularatna S BMC Health Serv Res. 2022; 22(1):1079.

PMID: 36002895 PMC: 9400308. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08464-7.

References

Andriole G, Crawford E, Grubb 3rd R, Buys S, Chia D, Church T . Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(13):1310-9. PMC: 2944770. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810696. View

Ratcliffe J, Van Haselen R, Buxton M, Hardy K, Colehan J, Partridge M . Assessing patients' preferences for characteristics associated with homeopathic and conventional treatment of asthma: a conjoint analysis study. Thorax. 2002; 57(6):503-8. PMC: 1746347. DOI: 10.1136/thorax.57.6.503. View

Draisma G, Boer R, Otto S, van der Cruijsen I, Damhuis R, Schroder F . Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95(12):868-78. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/95.12.868. View

Pedersen L, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kjaer T . The influence of information and private versus public provision on preferences for screening for prostate cancer: a willingness-to-pay study. Health Policy. 2011; 101(3):277-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.05.008. View

Ryan M, Gerard K . Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003; 2(1):55-64. View

Sennfalt K, Carlsson P, Varenhorst E . Diffusion and economic consequences of health technologies in prostate cancer care in Sweden, 1991-2002. Eur Urol. 2006; 49(6):1028-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.018. View

Roobol M, Kerkhof M, Schroder F, Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Hakama M . Prostate cancer mortality reduction by prostate-specific antigen-based screening adjusted for nonattendance and contamination in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol. 2009; 56(4):584-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.018. View

Whynes D, Philips Z, Avis M . Why do women participate in the English cervical cancer screening programme?. J Health Econ. 2006; 26(2):306-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.08.007. View

Mangham L, Hanson K, McPake B . How to do (or not to do) ... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan. 2008; 24(2):151-8. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czn047. View

10.

de Bekker-Grob E, Hol L, Donkers B, van Dam L, Habbema J, van Leerdam M . Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Value Health. 2009; 13(2):315-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00670.x. View

11.

Bech M, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J . Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2010; 20(3):273-86. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1587. View

12.

Ryan M . Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ. 2004; 328(7436):360-1. PMC: 341374. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.328.7436.360. View

13.

Wordsworth S, Ryan M, Skatun D, Waugh N . Women's preferences for cervical cancer screening: a study using a discrete choice experiment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006; 22(3):344-50. DOI: 10.1017/s0266462306051245. View

14.

Schroder F, Hugosson J, Roobol M, Tammela T, Ciatto S, Nelen V . Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(13):1320-8. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810084. View

15.

Hundley V, Ryan M . Are women's expectations and preferences for intrapartum care affected by the model of care on offer?. BJOG. 2004; 111(6):550-60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00152.x. View

16.

Cantor S, Volk R, Cass A, Gilani J, Spann S . Psychological benefits of prostate cancer screening: the role of reassurance. Health Expect. 2002; 5(2):104-13. PMC: 5060134. DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00166.x. View

17.

Lancsar E, Louviere J . Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(8):661-77. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004. View

18.

Van Dam L, Hol L, de Bekker-Grob E, Steyerberg E, Kuipers E, Habbema J . What determines individuals' preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer. 2009; 46(1):150-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.07.014. View

19.

Herbild L, Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D . Estimating the Danish populations' preferences for pharmacogenetic testing using a discrete choice experiment. The case of treating depression. Value Health. 2008; 12(4):560-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00465.x. View

20.

Phillips K, Van Bebber S, Marshall D, Walsh J, Thabane L . A review of studies examining stated preferences for cancer screening. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006; 3(3):A75. PMC: 1636712. View