Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:52:19.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PREFERENCE INFORMATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DECISION MAKING? A CASE STUDY OF COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2015

Sally Wortley ,
Kathy Flitcroft  and
Kirsten Howard
Sally Wortley
Affiliation:
School of Public Health, University of Sydneysally.wortley@sydney.edu.au
Kathy Flitcroft
Affiliation:
School of Public Health and the Poche Cerntre, University of Sydney
Kirsten Howard
Affiliation:
School of Public Health, University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the role of community preference information from discrete choice studies of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in health technology assessment (HTA) reports and subsequent policy decisions.

Methods: We undertook a systematic review of discrete choice studies of CRC screening. Included studies were reviewed to assess the policy context of the research. For those studies that cited a recent or pending review of CRC screening, further searches were undertaken to determine the extent to which community preference information was incorporated into the HTA decision-making process.

Results: Eight discrete choice studies that evaluated preferences for CRC screening were identified. Four of these studies referred to a national or local review of CRC screening in three countries: Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. Our review of subsequently released health policy documents showed that while consideration was given to community views on CRC, policy was not informed by discrete choice evidence.

Conclusions: Preferences and values of patients are increasingly being considered “evidence” to be incorporated into HTA reports. Discrete choice methodology is a rigorous quantitative method for eliciting preferences and while as a methodology it is growing in profile, it would appear that the results of such research are not being systematically translated or integrated into HTA reports. A formalized approach is needed to incorporate preference literature into the HTA decision-making process.

Keywords

Technology assessmentMedical decisionCancer screeningConsumer preference
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , 2015 , pp. 241 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Gray, JM. The shift to personalised and population medicine. Lancet. 2013;382:200–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Ryan, M. Discrete choice experiments in health care: NICE should consider using them for patient centred evaluations of technologies. BMJ. 2004;328:360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Lancsar, E, Louviere, J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. de Bekker Grob, EW, Ryan, M, Gerard, K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Stafinski, T, Menon, D, Marshall, D, Caulfield, T. Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources. Patient. 2011;4:207–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Lee, A, Skött, LS, Hansen, HP. Organizational and patient-related assessments in HTAs: State of the art. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:530–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Whitty, JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Ho, MP, Gonzalez, JM, Lerner, HP, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Gauvin, FP, Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Eyles, J, Lavis, JN. It all depends: Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1518–1526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Gabriel, SE, Normand, SL. Getting the methods right the foundation of patient-centered outcomes research. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:787–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Drummond, MF. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University; 1988.Google Scholar
12. Shiell, A, Hawe, P, Seymour, J. Values and preferences are not necessarily the same. Health Econ. 1997;6:515–518.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Giacomini, M, Hurley, J, Gold, I, Smith, P, Abelson, J. Values in Canadian health policy analysis: What are we talking about. Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Fondation canadienne de la recherche sur les Services de sant; 2001.Google Scholar
14. Marshall, D, McGregor, SE, Currie, G. Measuring preferences for colorectal cancer screening: What are the implications for moving forward? Patient. 2010;3:79–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Center, MM, Jemal, A, Smith, RA, Ward, E. Worldwide variations in colorectal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:366–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Brownson, RC, Kreuter, MW, Arrington, BA, True, WR. Translating scientific discoveries into public health action: How can schools of public health move us forward? Public Health Rep. 2006;121:97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Buxton, M. The payback of payback: Challenges in assessing research impact. Res Eval. 2011;20:259–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Wortley, S, Wong, G, Kieu, A, Howard, K. Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: A critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2014;7:271–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Salkeld, G, Solomon, M, Short, L, Ryan, M, Ward, JE. Evidence-based consumer choice: A case study in colorectal cancer screening. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2003;27:449–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Marshall, DA, Johnson, FR, Phillips, KA, et al. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10:415–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Marshall, DA, Johnson, FR, Kulin, NA, et al. How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ. 2009;18:1420–1439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Hol, L, de Bekker-Grob, EW, van Dam, L, et al. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: A discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2010;102:972–980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Flitcroft, KL, Salkeld, GP, Gillespie, JA, Trevena, LJ, Irwig, LM. Fifteen years of bowel cancer screening policy in Australia: Putting evidence into practice. Med J Aust. 2010;193:37–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Faecal occult blood testing for population health screening. Canberra, Australia: Medical Services Advisory Committee; 2004.Google Scholar
26. Woolcott Research Pty Ltd. A qualitative evaluation of opinions, attitudes and behaviours influencing the bowel cancer screening pilot program. Final report. Canberra: Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot Monitoring and Evaluation Steering Committee; 2004. Screening Monograph No.2/2005.Google Scholar
27. Epidemiology Services Unit HIBQH. Bowel cancer knowledge, perceptions and screening behaviours: Knowledge, attitudes & practices pre- and post-intervention surveys (2002 & 2004). Canberra: Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot Monitoring and Evaluation Steering Committee; 2004. Screening Monograph No.4/2005.Google Scholar
28. Medical Advisory Secretariart. Screening methods for the early detection of colorectal cancers and polyps: A summary of evidence-based analyses. Ontario: Ministry of Heath and Long Term Care; 2009. Ontartio Health Technology Assessment Services 9.Google Scholar
29. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CIHR's citizen engagement in health casebook. Ontario: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2012.Google Scholar
30. Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee. OHTAC recommendation: Screening methods for the early detection of colorectal cancers and polyps. Ontario: Ministry of Heath and Long Term Care; 2009. Ontartio Health Technology Assessment Services.Google Scholar
31. Health Council of the Netherlands. A national colorectal cancer screening programme. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; 2009.Google Scholar
32. McCaffery, K, Borril, J, Williamson, S, et al. Declining the offer of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for bowel cancer: A qualitative investigation of the decision-making process. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53:679–691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Van Rijn, AF, van Rossum, LGM, Deutekom, M, et al. Low priority main reason not to participate in a colorectal cancer screening program with a faecal occult blood test. J Public Health. 2008;30:461–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. DeBourcy, AC, Lichtenberger, S, Felton, S, et al. Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:169–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. van Gelder, RE, Birnie, E, Florie, J, et al. CT Colonography and colonoscopy: Assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology. 2004;233:328–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Liverani, M, Hawkins, B, Parkhurst, JO. Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e77404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Nutbeam, D, Boxall, AM. What influences the transfer of research into health policy and practice? Observations from England and Australia. Public Health. 2008;122:747–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Cohen, G, Schroeder, J, Newson, R, et al. Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: Testing a new impact assessment tool. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Rowe, G, Frewer, LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values. 2005;30:251–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Whitty, JA, Burton, P, Kendall, E, et al. Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens’ juries. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;2:1–6.Google Scholar
41. Frederiksen, ME, Lynge, E, Rebolj, M. What women want. Womens preferences for the management of low grade abnormal cervical screening tests: A systematic review. BJOG. 2012;119:7–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. Ghanouni, A, Smith, SG, Halligan, S, et al. Public preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests: A review of conjoint analysis studies. Exp Rev Med Devices. 2013;10:489–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. Joy, SM, Little, E, Maruthur, NM, Purnell, TS, Bridges, JF. Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: A scoping review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:877–892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Grimshaw, JM, Eccles, MP, Lavis, JN, Hill, SJ, Squires, JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7:50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45. Ziebland, S, Hunt, K. Using secondary analysis of qualitative data of patient experiences of health care to inform health services research and policy. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2014;19:177–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Peirson, L, Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D, Ciliska, D, Warren, R. Screening for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2013;2:35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Dowling, EC, Klabunde, C, Patnick, J, Ballard-Barbash, R. Breast and cervical cancer screening programme implementation in 16 countries. J Med Screen. 2010;17:139–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Selby, JV, Beal, AC, Frank, L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA. 2012;307:1583–1584.Google ScholarPubMed
49. Chalmers, I, Bracken, MB, Djulbegovic, B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50. Salkeld, G, Ryan, M, Short, L. The veil of experience: Do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ. 2000;9:267–270.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51. Gyrd-Hansen, D, Sogaard, J. Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Econ. 2001;10:617–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52. Nayaradou, M, Berchi, C, Dejardin, O, Launoy, G. Eliciting population preferences for mass colorectal cancer screening organization. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:224–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53. van Dam, L, Hol, L, de Bekker-Grob, EW, et al. What determines individuals preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:150–159.Google ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Wortley supplementary material

Table 1

Download Wortley supplementary material(File)
File 16.7 KB