Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies (n = 23)

From: Attributes in stated preference elicitation studies on colorectal cancer screening and their relative importance for decision-making among screenees: a systematic review

Study, year, country

Objective(s)

CRC screening tests

No. of attributes

Procedure-related characteristics

Test characteristics

Benefits

Harms

Structural characteristics of health care

Level of evidence

Risk of biasa

Rating

Hawley et al., 2008, USA [46]

To analyse preferences for CRC screening tests of racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients

FOBT, SIG, COL, DCBE, FIT, V-COL

5

✓

✓

 

✓

  

Critical

Ranking

Gyrd-Hansen et al., 2001, Denmark [58]

To analyse public preferences for attributes associated with participation in cancer screening programmes

FOBT

4

✓

✓

✓

 

✓

 

Serious

Discrete choice

Generic

Salkeld et al., 2000, Australia [55]

To measure consumer preferences for an existing and a hypothetical new CRC screening test

Bowel scan test kit (status quo) and a hypothetical new bowel test

5

✓

✓

  

✓

 

Critical

Salkeld et al., 2003, Australia [56]

To elicit community preferences for CRC screening by faecal occult blood test based on harms and benefits

FOBT

3

 

✓

✓

 

✓

 

Serious

Marshall et al., 2007, Canada [39]

To analyse preferences for various CRC screening tests

FOBT, SIG, COL, DCBE, DNA stool tests, V-COL

6

✓

✓

 

✓

✓

 

Moderate

Howard et al., 2009, Australia [43]

To explore the effect of attribute framing within the context of CRC screening preferences.b

FITs

6

✓

✓

  

✓

 

Moderate

Marshall et al., 2009, Canada, USA [47]

To analyse and compare general-population and physician preferences for attributes of CRC screening tests

FOBT, SIG, COL, DCBE, DNA stool tests, V-COL

9

✓

✓

 

✓

✓

 

Critical

Van Dam et al., 2010, The Netherlands [36]

To analyse how procedural characteristics of CRC screening tests determine preferences for participation and how individuals weigh these against the expected health benefits from participating in CRC screening

FOBT, SIG, COL

7

✓

 

✓

✓

  

Critical

Nayaradou et al., 2010, France [59]

To identify population preferences for CRC screening test characteristics

Stool test, blood test

7

✓

✓

✓

 

✓

 

Serious

Pignone et al., 2012, USA [44]

To compare two methods for eliciting and clarifying patient values for decision-making aboutCRC screening.b

FOBT, SIG, COL, CT-COL

6

✓

 

✓

✓

✓

 

Critical

Brenner et al., 2014, USA, Australia [45]

To compare the effects of three methods of values clarification on decision-making about CRC screening.b

FOBT, SIG, COL, radiological testing

5

✓

 

✓

✓

  

Critical

Groothuis-Oudshoorn et al., 2014, The Nerlands, UK [53]

To analyse public preferences for various CRC screening tests

FIT, SIG, COL, nanopill

6

✓

✓

 

✓

  

Serious

Pignone et al., 2014, USA [48]

To analyse how vulnerable populations value different aspects of CRC screening tests

Stool test, COL, CT-COL

4

✓

   

✓

 

Critical

Kistler et al., 2015, USA [49]

To analyse older adults’ preferences for CRC screening tests

FOBT, SIG, COL

4

✓

 

✓

✓

  

Critical

Martens et al., 2016, USA [50]

To analyse preferences of the Hispanic immigrant community in North Carolina for CRC screening test characteristics and barriers and facilitators around CRC screening

Stool test, COL, CT COL

4

✓

   

✓

 

Critical

Osborne et al., 2018, Australia [57]

To analyse population preferences for CRC screening tests

Stool test, blood test, saliva test

3

✓

✓

  

✓

 

Serious

Mansfield et al., 2018, USA [51]

To analyse preferences for the features of CRC screening tests

FOBT, FIT, SIG, COL

5

✓

✓

 

✓

✓

 

Critical

Ramezani_Doroh et al., 2019, Iran [60]

To analyse the preferences for CRC screening tests

gFOBT, FIT, SIG, COL, DCBE, stool DNA test

9

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

 

Critical

De Bekker-Grob et al., 2019, The Netherlands [41]

To determine whether the number of alternatives in a DCE choice task should reflect the actual decision context, and how complex the choice model needs to be to be able to predict real-world healthcare choices.b

FOBT

5

✓

✓

✓

 

✓

 

Serious

Phisalprapa et al., 2021, Thailand [61]

To analyse preferences and willingness to pay of individuals at risk of CRC

FIT, SIG, COL, DCBE, CT COL

6

✓

 

✓

✓

✓

 

Critical

Labelled

Hol et al., 2010, The Netherlands [38]

To analyse preferences for and to predict the uptake of CRC screening tests

FOBT, SIG, COL

2

✓

 

✓

   

Critical

Benning et al., 2014, The Netherlands [52]

To analyse potential screening participants’ preferences for different non-invasive CRC screening tests

Stool test, blood test, combi test

4

 

✓

✓

  

✓

Critical

Benning et al., 2014, The Netherlands [54]

To analyse how much individuals’ participation decision in non-invasive screening is affected by the presence or absence of detailed information about invasive follow-up testing

Stool test, blood test, combi test

5

 

✓

✓

 

✓

✓

Critical

  1. COL Colonoscopy, CRC Colorectal cancer, CT-COL Computed tomographic colonography, DCBE Double-contrast barium enema, DCE Discrete choice experiment, DNA Deoxyribo nucleic acid, FIT Faecal immunochemical test, FOBT Faecal occult blood testing, gFOBT guaiac-based FOBT, SIG (flexible) Sigmoidoscopy, V-COL Virtual colonoscopy
  2. aJudgement of overall risk of bias within a study include low, moderate, serious or critical
  3. bExploring methodological issues