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

Deborah A. Marshall, F. Reed Johnson, Nathalie A. Kulin, Semra Özdemir, Judith M. E. Walsh, John K. Marshall, Stephanie Van Bebber and Kathryn A. Phillips

Health Economics, 2009, vol. 18, issue 12, 1420-1439

Abstract: Background: Patient preferences can affect colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test use. We compared utility‐based preferences for alternative CRC screening tests from a stated‐preference discrete‐choice survey of the general population and physicians in Canada and the United States. Methods: General population respondents (Canada, n=501; US, n=1087) participated in a survey with 12 choice scenarios and 9 CRC screening test attributes. Physicians (n=100, both Canada and US) reported expected patient preferences. We estimated relative importance of attributes using bivariate probit regression analysis and calculated willingness‐to‐pay for various CRC screening tests. Results: In 28 and 31% of scenarios, Canadian and US respondents, respectively, chose no screening over a hypothetical test. Canadian (45%) and US (46%) physicians expected patients to choose no screening more often. For all groups the most important attribute was sensitivity, but physicians' perception of patients' preferences are significantly different from actual preferences. Other key attributes are those related to test performance or the testing process. Fecal DNA, colonoscopy, and virtual colonoscopy were the most preferred tests by all groups, but respondents were willing‐to‐pay more than physicians predicted. Conclusion: Physicians' perception of patients' preferences are quite different from those of the general population. However, among general population and physicians, Canadian and US preferences were similar. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 2009
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (14)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1437

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:12:p:1420-1439

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones

More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().