↓ Skip to main content

Using a discrete choice experiment to inform the design of programs to promote colon cancer screening for vulnerable populations in North Carolina

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using a discrete choice experiment to inform the design of programs to promote colon cancer screening for vulnerable populations in North Carolina
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12913-014-0611-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael P Pignone, Trisha M Crutchfield, Paul M Brown, Sarah T Hawley, Jane L Laping, Carmen L Lewis, Kristen Hassmiller Lich, Lisa C Richardson, Florence KL Tangka, Stephanie B Wheeler

Abstract

BackgroundScreening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, particularly for vulnerable populations. Effective intervention programs are needed to increase screening rates. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to learn about how vulnerable individuals in North Carolina value different aspects of CRC screening programs.MethodsWe enrolled English-speaking adults ages 50¿75 at average risk of CRC from rural North Carolina communities with low rates of CRC screening, targeting those with public or no insurance and low incomes. Participants received basic information about CRC screening and potential program features, then completed a 16 task DCE and survey questions that examined preferences for four attributes of screening programs: testing options available; travel time required; money paid for screening or rewards for completing screening; and the portion of the cost of follow-up care paid out of pocket. We used Hierarchical Bayesian methods to calculate individual-level utilities for the 4 attributes¿ levels and individual-level attribute importance scores. For each individual, the attribute with the highest importance score was considered the most important attribute. Individual utilities were then aggregated to produce mean utilities for each attribute. We also compared DCE-based results with those from direct questions in a post-DCE survey.ResultsWe enrolled 150 adults. Mean age was 57.8 (range 50¿74); 55% were women; 76% White and 19% African-American; 87% annual household income under $30,000; and 51% were uninsured. Individuals preferred shorter travel; rewards or small copayments compared with large copayments; programs that included stool testing as an option; and greater coverage of follow-up costs. Follow-up cost coverage was most frequently found to be the most important attribute from the DCE (47%); followed by test reward/copayment (33%). From the survey, proportion of follow-up costs paid was most frequently cited as most important (42% of participants), followed by testing options (32%). There was moderate agreement (45%) in attribute importance between the DCE and the single question in the post-DCE survey.ConclusionsScreening test copayments and follow-up care coverage costs are important program characteristics in this vulnerable, rural population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 24 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,385,510
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,460
of 7,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,785
of 361,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#112
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,296 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.