↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of patient preferences for fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy using the analytic hierarchy process

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Comparison of patient preferences for fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy using the analytic hierarchy process
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0841-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yinghui Xu, Barcey T Levy, Jeanette M Daly, George R Bergus, Jeffrey C Dunkelberg

Abstract

In average-risk individuals aged 50 to 75 years, there is no difference in life-years gained when comparing colonoscopy every 10 years vs. annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening. Little is known about the preferences of patients when they have experienced both tests. The study was conducted with 954 patients from the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics during 2010 to 2011. Patients scheduled for a colonoscopy were asked to complete a FIT before the colonoscopy preparation. Following both tests, patients completed a questionnaire which was based on an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) decision-making model. In the AHP analysis, the test accuracy was given the highest priority (0.457), followed by complications (0.321), and test preparation (0.223). Patients preferred colonoscopy (0.599) compared with FIT (0.401) when considering accuracy; preferred FIT (0.589) compared with colonoscopy (0.411) when considering avoiding complications; and preferred FIT (0.650) compared with colonoscopy (0.350) when considering test preparation. The overall aggregated priorities were 0.517 for FIT, and 0.483 for colonoscopy, indicating patients slightly preferred FIT over colonoscopy. Patients' preferences were significantly different before and after provision of detailed information on test features (p < 0.0001). AHP analysis showed that patients slightly preferred FIT over colonoscopy. The information provided to patients strongly affected patient preference. Patients' test preferences should be considered when ordering a colorectal cancer screening test.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 30%
Psychology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Computer Science 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 14 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 19 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,588,154
of 9,711,563 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#716
of 3,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,980
of 235,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#25
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,711,563 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 235,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.