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 Journal Articles uri icon

  • Overview
  • Research
  • Identity
  • Additional Document Info
  • View All


  • AbstractBackground: 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.


  • Marshall, Deborah A
  • Johnson, F Reed
  • Kulin, Nathalie A
  • Özdemir, Semra
  • Walsh, Judith ME
  • Marshall, John Kenneth
  • Van Bebber, Stephanie
  • Phillips, Kathryn A

publication date

  • December 2009