CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS
Objectives: Differences in the process of using liver imaging technologies might be important to patients. This study aimed to investigate preferences for scanning modalities used in diagnosing focal liver lesions. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 504 adults aged ≥25 years....
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of technology assessment in health care 2015-01, Vol.31 (1-2), p.27-35 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 35 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1-2 |
container_start_page | 27 |
container_title | International journal of technology assessment in health care |
container_volume | 31 |
creator | Whitty, Jennifer Filby, Alexandra Smith, Adam B Carr, Louise M |
description | Objectives: Differences in the process of using liver imaging technologies might be important to patients. This study aimed to investigate preferences for scanning modalities used in diagnosing focal liver lesions.
Methods: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 504 adults aged ≥25 years. Respondents made repeated choices between two hypothetical scans, described according to waiting time for scan and results, procedure type, the chance of minor side-effects, and whether further scanning procedures were likely to be required. Choice data were analyzed using mixed-logit models with respondent characteristics used to explain preference heterogeneity.
Results: Respondents preferred shorter waiting times, the procedure to be undertaken with a handheld scanner on a couch instead of within a body scanner, no side-effects, and no follow‑up scans (p ≤ .01). The average respondent was willing to wait an additional 2 weeks for the scan if it resulted in avoiding side-effects, 1.5 weeks to avoid further procedures or to be told the results immediately, and 1 week to have the scan performed on a couch with a handheld scanner. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in the strength of preference for desirable imaging characteristics.
Conclusions: An average individual belonging to a general population sub‑group most likely to require imaging to characterize focal liver lesions in the United Kingdom would prefer contrast‑enhanced ultrasound over magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. Insights into the patient perspective around differential characteristics of imaging modalities have the potential to be used to guide recommendations around the use of these technologies. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0266462315000239 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4505736</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0266462315000239</cupid><sourcerecordid>1773838287</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c537t-4412de54675666e7c6c74c98a97377cd30cb659cd1ecde8aedc063eac4e061623</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc1O20AUhUdVqxJoH4ANstQNG9M7_zMbpMg4qStjV3GoxGo0GQ9glMRgJ5X69h2LgCgItatZnO-cO_cehA4xnGDA8msFRAgmCMUcAAjV79AIM4ljQZl6j0aDHA_6Htrv-1sATEHDR7RHBGghAY_Q96QsqovzdBb9mKWTdJYWSVpFk3IWVcm4KLJiGp2XZ-M8m19G8zI6y8bToqzSQCTjPMqzn8GZp1UWUj6hD1d22fvPu_cAXUzSefItzstpFujYcSo3MWOY1J4zIbkQwksnnGROK6slldLVFNxCcO1q7F3tlfW1A0G9dcyDwGGZA3T6kHu3XayC6tebzi7NXdesbPfbtLYxfyvr5sZct78M48AlFSHgeBfQtfdb32_MqumdXy7t2rfb3mAFwDjRhP8blZIqqoiS_4FiqhlhYvjAlxfobbvt1uFoA6VAaoWHPfED5bq27zt_9bQiBjP0b171HzxHz2_z5HgsPAB0F2pXi66pr_2z2W_G_gEj0rG6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1718079812</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Whitty, Jennifer ; Filby, Alexandra ; Smith, Adam B ; Carr, Louise M</creator><creatorcontrib>Whitty, Jennifer ; Filby, Alexandra ; Smith, Adam B ; Carr, Louise M</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives: Differences in the process of using liver imaging technologies might be important to patients. This study aimed to investigate preferences for scanning modalities used in diagnosing focal liver lesions.
Methods: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 504 adults aged ≥25 years. Respondents made repeated choices between two hypothetical scans, described according to waiting time for scan and results, procedure type, the chance of minor side-effects, and whether further scanning procedures were likely to be required. Choice data were analyzed using mixed-logit models with respondent characteristics used to explain preference heterogeneity.
Results: Respondents preferred shorter waiting times, the procedure to be undertaken with a handheld scanner on a couch instead of within a body scanner, no side-effects, and no follow‑up scans (p ≤ .01). The average respondent was willing to wait an additional 2 weeks for the scan if it resulted in avoiding side-effects, 1.5 weeks to avoid further procedures or to be told the results immediately, and 1 week to have the scan performed on a couch with a handheld scanner. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in the strength of preference for desirable imaging characteristics.
Conclusions: An average individual belonging to a general population sub‑group most likely to require imaging to characterize focal liver lesions in the United Kingdom would prefer contrast‑enhanced ultrasound over magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. Insights into the patient perspective around differential characteristics of imaging modalities have the potential to be used to guide recommendations around the use of these technologies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4623</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6348</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0266462315000239</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26096701</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Assessments ; Choice Behavior ; Contrast agents ; Contrast Media ; Couches ; Demographics ; Female ; Heterogeneity ; Humans ; Imaging ; Lesions ; Liver ; Liver cirrhosis ; Liver diseases ; Liver Diseases - diagnostic imaging ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Patient Preference ; Patients ; Preferences ; Scanners ; Scanning ; Surveillance ; Time Factors ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasonography ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2015-01, Vol.31 (1-2), p.27-35</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015</rights><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</rights><rights>Cambridge University Press 2015 2015 Cambridge University Press</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c537t-4412de54675666e7c6c74c98a97377cd30cb659cd1ecde8aedc063eac4e061623</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c537t-4412de54675666e7c6c74c98a97377cd30cb659cd1ecde8aedc063eac4e061623</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266462315000239/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,55603</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26096701$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Whitty, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Filby, Alexandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Adam B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carr, Louise M</creatorcontrib><title>CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS</title><title>International journal of technology assessment in health care</title><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><description>Objectives: Differences in the process of using liver imaging technologies might be important to patients. This study aimed to investigate preferences for scanning modalities used in diagnosing focal liver lesions.
Methods: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 504 adults aged ≥25 years. Respondents made repeated choices between two hypothetical scans, described according to waiting time for scan and results, procedure type, the chance of minor side-effects, and whether further scanning procedures were likely to be required. Choice data were analyzed using mixed-logit models with respondent characteristics used to explain preference heterogeneity.
Results: Respondents preferred shorter waiting times, the procedure to be undertaken with a handheld scanner on a couch instead of within a body scanner, no side-effects, and no follow‑up scans (p ≤ .01). The average respondent was willing to wait an additional 2 weeks for the scan if it resulted in avoiding side-effects, 1.5 weeks to avoid further procedures or to be told the results immediately, and 1 week to have the scan performed on a couch with a handheld scanner. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in the strength of preference for desirable imaging characteristics.
Conclusions: An average individual belonging to a general population sub‑group most likely to require imaging to characterize focal liver lesions in the United Kingdom would prefer contrast‑enhanced ultrasound over magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. Insights into the patient perspective around differential characteristics of imaging modalities have the potential to be used to guide recommendations around the use of these technologies.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Assessments</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Contrast agents</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>Couches</subject><subject>Demographics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Liver</subject><subject>Liver cirrhosis</subject><subject>Liver diseases</subject><subject>Liver Diseases - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Patient Preference</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Scanners</subject><subject>Scanning</subject><subject>Surveillance</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0266-4623</issn><issn>1471-6348</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>IKXGN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc1O20AUhUdVqxJoH4ANstQNG9M7_zMbpMg4qStjV3GoxGo0GQ9glMRgJ5X69h2LgCgItatZnO-cO_cehA4xnGDA8msFRAgmCMUcAAjV79AIM4ljQZl6j0aDHA_6Htrv-1sATEHDR7RHBGghAY_Q96QsqovzdBb9mKWTdJYWSVpFk3IWVcm4KLJiGp2XZ-M8m19G8zI6y8bToqzSQCTjPMqzn8GZp1UWUj6hD1d22fvPu_cAXUzSefItzstpFujYcSo3MWOY1J4zIbkQwksnnGROK6slldLVFNxCcO1q7F3tlfW1A0G9dcyDwGGZA3T6kHu3XayC6tebzi7NXdesbPfbtLYxfyvr5sZct78M48AlFSHgeBfQtfdb32_MqumdXy7t2rfb3mAFwDjRhP8blZIqqoiS_4FiqhlhYvjAlxfobbvt1uFoA6VAaoWHPfED5bq27zt_9bQiBjP0b171HzxHz2_z5HgsPAB0F2pXi66pr_2z2W_G_gEj0rG6</recordid><startdate>20150101</startdate><enddate>20150101</enddate><creator>Whitty, Jennifer</creator><creator>Filby, Alexandra</creator><creator>Smith, Adam B</creator><creator>Carr, Louise M</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>IKXGN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150101</creationdate><title>CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS</title><author>Whitty, Jennifer ; Filby, Alexandra ; Smith, Adam B ; Carr, Louise M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c537t-4412de54675666e7c6c74c98a97377cd30cb659cd1ecde8aedc063eac4e061623</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Assessments</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Contrast agents</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>Couches</topic><topic>Demographics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Liver</topic><topic>Liver cirrhosis</topic><topic>Liver diseases</topic><topic>Liver Diseases - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Patient Preference</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Scanners</topic><topic>Scanning</topic><topic>Surveillance</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Whitty, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Filby, Alexandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Adam B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carr, Louise M</creatorcontrib><collection>Cambridge Journals Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Whitty, Jennifer</au><au>Filby, Alexandra</au><au>Smith, Adam B</au><au>Carr, Louise M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS</atitle><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><date>2015-01-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>1-2</issue><spage>27</spage><epage>35</epage><pages>27-35</pages><issn>0266-4623</issn><eissn>1471-6348</eissn><abstract>Objectives: Differences in the process of using liver imaging technologies might be important to patients. This study aimed to investigate preferences for scanning modalities used in diagnosing focal liver lesions.
Methods: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 504 adults aged ≥25 years. Respondents made repeated choices between two hypothetical scans, described according to waiting time for scan and results, procedure type, the chance of minor side-effects, and whether further scanning procedures were likely to be required. Choice data were analyzed using mixed-logit models with respondent characteristics used to explain preference heterogeneity.
Results: Respondents preferred shorter waiting times, the procedure to be undertaken with a handheld scanner on a couch instead of within a body scanner, no side-effects, and no follow‑up scans (p ≤ .01). The average respondent was willing to wait an additional 2 weeks for the scan if it resulted in avoiding side-effects, 1.5 weeks to avoid further procedures or to be told the results immediately, and 1 week to have the scan performed on a couch with a handheld scanner. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in the strength of preference for desirable imaging characteristics.
Conclusions: An average individual belonging to a general population sub‑group most likely to require imaging to characterize focal liver lesions in the United Kingdom would prefer contrast‑enhanced ultrasound over magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. Insights into the patient perspective around differential characteristics of imaging modalities have the potential to be used to guide recommendations around the use of these technologies.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>26096701</pmid><doi>10.1017/S0266462315000239</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0266-4623 |
ispartof | International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2015-01, Vol.31 (1-2), p.27-35 |
issn | 0266-4623 1471-6348 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4505736 |
source | MEDLINE; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Adult Aged Assessments Choice Behavior Contrast agents Contrast Media Couches Demographics Female Heterogeneity Humans Imaging Lesions Liver Liver cirrhosis Liver diseases Liver Diseases - diagnostic imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging Male Middle Aged Patient Preference Patients Preferences Scanners Scanning Surveillance Time Factors Tomography, X-Ray Computed Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasonography United Kingdom |
title | CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T02%3A27%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=CONSUMER%20PREFERENCES%20FOR%20SCANNING%20MODALITY%20TO%20DIAGNOSE%20FOCAL%20LIVER%20LESIONS&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20technology%20assessment%20in%20health%20care&rft.au=Whitty,%20Jennifer&rft.date=2015-01-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=27&rft.epage=35&rft.pages=27-35&rft.issn=0266-4623&rft.eissn=1471-6348&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0266462315000239&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1773838287%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1718079812&rft_id=info:pmid/26096701&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0266462315000239&rfr_iscdi=true |