Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conjoint Analysis Versus Rating and Ranking for Values Elicitation and Clarification in Colorectal Cancer Screening

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE

To compare two techniques for eliciting and clarifying patient values for decision making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening: choice-based conjoint analysis and a rating and ranking task.

METHODS

Using our decision lab registry and university e-mail lists, we recruited average risk adults ages 48–75 for a written, mailed survey. Eligible participants were given basic information about CRC screening and six attributes of CRC screening tests, then randomized to complete either a choice-based conjoint analysis with 16 discrete choice tasks or a rating and ranking task. The main outcome was the most important attribute, as determined from conjoint analysis or participant ranking. Conjoint analysis-based most important attribute was determined from individual patient-level utilities generated using multinomial logistic regression and hierarchical Bayesian modeling.

RESULTS

Of the 114 eligible participants, 104 completed and returned questionnaires. Mean age was 57 (range 48–73), 70% were female, 88% were white, 71% were college graduates, and 62% were up to date with CRC screening. Ability to reduce CRC incidence and mortality was the most frequent most important attribute for both the conjoint analysis (56% of respondents) and rating/ranking (76% of respondents) groups, and these proportions differed significantly between groups (absolute difference 20%, 95% CI 3%, 37%, p =0.03). There were no significant differences between groups in proportion with clear values (p = 0.352), intent to be screened (p = 0.226) or unlabelled test preference (p = 0.521)

CONCLUSIONS

Choice-based conjoint analysis produced somewhat different patterns of attribute importance than a rating and ranking task, but had little effect on other outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Braddock CH 3rd, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999;282(24):2313–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH. Shared Decision-Making Workgroup of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. A suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(1):56–66. PMID 14700714.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, Barry M, Col NF, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;8(3):CD001431. Review PMID: 19588325.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pignone M, Harris R, Kinsinger L. Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(10):761–9. PMID: 11085838.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Connor AM, Bennett C, Stacey D, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, et al. Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the international patient decision aid standards collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(5):554–74. Epub 2007 Sep 14. Review PMID: 17873255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Elwyn G, O’Connor AM, Bennett C, Newcombe RG, Politi M, Durand MA, et al. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4705. Epub 2009 Mar 4.PMID: 19259269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320:1530–1533.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. O’Connor AM, Wells GA, Tugwell P, Laupacis A, Elmslie T, Drake E. The effects of an ‘explicit’ values clarification exercise in a woman’s decision aid regarding postmenopausal hormone therapy. Health Expect. 1999;2(1):21–32. PMID: 11281872.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sheridan SL, Griffith J, Behrend L, Gizlice Z, Cai J, Pignone MP. Effect of adding a values clarification exercise to a decision aid on heart disease prevention: a randomized trial. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(4):E28–39. Epub 2010 May 18. PMID: 20484089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Griffith JM, Lewis CL, Hawley S, Sheridan SL, Pignone MP. Randomized trial of presenting absolute v. relative risk reduction in the elicitation of patient values for heart disease prevention with conjoint analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2009;29(2):167–74. Epub 2009 Mar 11.PMID: 19279298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hawley ST, Volk RJ, Krishnamurthy P, Jibaja-Weiss M, Vernon SW, Kneuper S. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients. Med Care. 2008;46(9 Suppl 1):S10–6. PMID: 18725820.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim J, Whitney A, Hayter S, Lewis C, Campbell M, Sutherland L, et al. Development and initial testing of a computer-based patient decision aid to promote colorectal cancer screening for primary care practice. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005;28(5):36. PMID: 16313676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(2):132–41. PMID: 12118972.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J. Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(2):96–104. PMID: 12118964.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jonas DE, Russell LB, Sandler RS, Chou J, Pignone M. Patient time requirements for screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(11):2401–10. Epub 2007 Jun 29. PMID: 17608779.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jonas DE, Russell LB, Sandler RS, Chou J, Pignone M. Value of patient time invested in the colonoscopy screening process: time requirements for colonoscopy study. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28(1):56–65. PMID: 18263561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson RM, Orme BK. how many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies? Sawtooth software research paper series 1996.

  20. Barratt A, Howard K, Irwig L, Salkeld G, Houssami N. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices. BMJ. 2005;23(330):7497–936. Epub 2005 Mar 8.PMID: 15755755.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson R. Monotonicity constraints in choice-based conjoint with hierarchical Bayes Sawtooth software technical paper series 2000, available at www.sawtoothsoftware.com.

  22. Bryan Orme, John Howell. Application of covariates within Sawtooth software’s CBC/HB program: theory and practical example. Sawtooth software technical paper series 2009, available at www.sawtoothsoftware.com.

  23. Huber J. Achieving individual-level predictions from CBC data: comparing ICE and hierarchical bayes. Sawtooth technical paper series 1998, available at www.sawtoothsoftware.com.

  24. Sheridan SL, Golin C, Harris RP, Driscoll D, Deal AM, Enemchukwu E, et al. A pilot randomized trial of two types of values clarification exercises to facilitate informed decision making for prostate cancer screening. Society of general internal medicine meeting (poster). Pittsburgh, PA. April 2008.

  25. Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10(5):415–30. PMID: 17888107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. DeBourcy AC, Lichtenberger S, Felton S, Butterfield KT, Ahnen DJ, Denberg TD. Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(2):169–74. Epub 2007 Dec 21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shokar NK, Carlson CA, Weller SC. Informed decision making changes test preferences for colorectal cancer screening in a diverse population. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(2):141–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Imaeda A, Bender D, Fraenkel L. What is most important to patients when deciding about colorectal screening? J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(7):688–93. Epub 2010 Mar 23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 50–75 years - United States, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59(26):808–12. PubMed PMID: 20613704.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Grant support: Dr. Pignone was supported by an Established Investigator Award from the National Cancer Institute (K05 CA129166) and by the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making.

Prior Presentations: We presented this research as an oral presentation at the Society for Medical Decision Making 2010 National Meeting in Toronto.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Cecil Sheps Center for Health Services Research and Lineberger Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, 5045 Old Clinic Building, CB #7110, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA

    Michael P. Pignone MD, MPH, Alison T. Brenner MPH, Stacey L. Sheridan MD, MPH, Carmen L. Lewis MD, MPH & Daniel E. Jonas MD, MPH

  2. Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Sarah Hawley PhD, MPH

  3. School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Kirsten Howard PhD, MPH

Authors
  1. Michael P. Pignone MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alison T. Brenner MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah Hawley PhD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stacey L. Sheridan MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carmen L. Lewis MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniel E. Jonas MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kirsten Howard PhD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael P. Pignone MD, MPH.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 56 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pignone, M.P., Brenner, A.T., Hawley, S. et al. Conjoint Analysis Versus Rating and Ranking for Values Elicitation and Clarification in Colorectal Cancer Screening. J GEN INTERN MED 27, 45–50 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1837-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1837-z

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation