Skip to main content
×
×
Home

CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS

  • Jennifer Whitty (a1), Alexandra Filby (a2), Adam B Smith (a2) and Louise M Carr (a2)
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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
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.
References
Hide All
1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). SonoVue (sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles) - Contrast agent for contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of the liver. NICE Diagnostics Guidance 5. London: NICE; 2012.
2. Claudon, M, Dietrich, CF, Choi, BI, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver - update 2012: A WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013;39:187210.
3. Jang, JY, Kim, MY, Jeong, SW, et al. Current consensus and guidelines of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of focal liver lesions. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2013;19:116.
4. Friedrich-Rust, M, Klopffleisch, T, Nierhoff, J, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the differentiation of benign and malignant focal liver lesions: A meta-analysis. Liver Int. 2013;33:739755.
5. Ooi, CC, Low, SC, Schneider-Kolsky, M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differentiating benign and malignant focal liver lesions: A retrospective study. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2010;54:421430.
6. Beaton, C, Cochlin, D, Kumar, N. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound should be the initial radiological investigation to characterise focal liver lesions. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:4346.
7. Leen, E, Angerson, WJ, Yarmenitis, S, et al. Multi‑centre clinical study evaluating the efficacy of SonoVue (BR1), a new ultrasound contrast agent in Doppler investigation of focal hepatic lesions. Eur J Radiol. 2002;41:200206.
8. Albrecht, T, Hohmann, J, Oldenburg, A, Skrok, J, Wolf, KJ. Detection and characterisation of liver metastases. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:2533.
9. Piscaglia, F, Bolondi, L. Italian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (SIUMB) study group on ultrasound contrast agents. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: Retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006;32:1369–75.
10. Torzilli, G. Adverse effects associated with SonoVue use. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2005;4:399401.
11. Sirli, R, Sporea, I, Popescu, A, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound for the diagnosis of liver hemangiomas in clinical practice. Med Ultrason. 2011;13:95101.
12. Enders, J, Zimmermann, E, Rief, M, et al. Reduction of claustrophobia during magnetic resonance imaging: Methods and design of the “CLAUSTRO” randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Imaging. 2011;11:4.
13. Ollivier, L, Apiou, F, Leclère, J, et al. Patient experiences and preferences: Development of practice guidelines in a cancer imaging department. Cancer Imaging. 2009;9:9297.
14. Pahade, J, Couto, C, Davis, RB, et al. Reviewing imaging examination results with a radiologist immediately after study completion: Patient preferences and assessment of feasibility in an academic department. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:844851.
15. Smith, AB, Filby, A, Carr, LM. Heterogeneity in patient diagnostic pathways: An example from contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnostic scans for focal liver lesions. BMC Res Notes. 2012;31:199.
16. Lancsar, E, Louviere, J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661677.
17. de Bekker-Grob, EW, Ryan, M, Gerard, K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145172.
18. Howard, K, Salkeld, G, Pignone, M, et al. Preferences for CT colonography and colonoscopy as diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer: A discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2011;14:11461152.
19. van Dongen, H, Timmermans, A, Jacobi, CE, et al. Diagnostic hysteroscopy and saline infusion sonography in the diagnosis of intrauterine abnormalities: An assessment of patient preference. Gynecol Surg. 2011;8:6570.
20. Cancer Research UK. Liver cancer incidence statistics. 2013. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/liver/incidence/uk-liver-cancer-incidence-statistics (accessed March 28, 2013).
21. Jenkinson, C, Layte, R. Development and testing of the UK SF-12 (short form health survey). J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2:1418.
22. Brazier, JE, Roberts, J. Estimating a preference-based index from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42:851859.
23. Bridges, JF, Hauber, AB, Marshall, D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: A report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14:403413.
24. Econometric Software. NLOGIT. Version 5 ed. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software, Inc.; 2012.
25. Westwood, M, Joore, M, Grutters, J, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using SonoVue® (sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles) compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the characterisation of focal liver lesions and detection of liver metastases: A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:1243.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Whitty supplementary material
Tables S1-S3 and Figures S1-S2

 Word (76 KB)
76 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed