Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid Research Articles

Dissemination of colorectal cancer information among Hispanic patients and their social network

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision aids can inform patients about CRC screening benefits, costs, and procedures. Patients who receive the decision aid report wanting to share the information with their families and friends. We evaluated a CRC screening decision aid on Hispanic patients’ communication to their alters and whether patient-alter communication leads to alters’ CRC screening intention.MethodsWe conducted a one-arm pre/post study of Hispanic patients and their alters; patients (n = 42) and their alters (n = 19) were recruited from a clinic site in Yakima County, Washington State. Patients viewed a CRC screening decision aid at the clinic site. Survey data from patients and alters were collected via telephone including patients’ communication with their alters about CRC screening after viewing the decision aid and alters’ intention to be screened for CRC after talking to the patient.ResultsMost participants reported sharing CRC information with their alters after viewing the decision aid, and most alters confirmed they had received CRC information from participants (68%). The decision aid was associated with participants' own intention to undergo CRC screening and with alters' intention to be screened for CRC using a fecal occult blood test (p = 0.014) and sigmoidoscopy (p = 0.011).ConclusionsPatient decision aids have the potential to increase CRC screening behavior beyond the decision aid recipients to their social network.Trial registrationTrials Registration Number: NCT04444232 “Retrospectively registered.”

Additional Comments on "Testing a Culturally Adapted Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid Among American Indians: Results from a Pre-Post Trial".

Additional Comments on "Testing a Culturally Adapted Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid Among American Indians: Results from a Pre-Post Trial".

Testing a Culturally Adapted Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid Among American Indians: Results from a Pre-Post Trial.

Purpose: American Indian adults have not experienced decreases in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality observed in other races or ethnic groups and their screening rates are low. Decision aids that explain available CRC screening options are one potential strategy to promote screening. The goal of this study was to test the effect of a culturally adapted decision aid on CRC-related outcomes among American Indian adults, including screening-related knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, intentions, and screening modality preferences.Methods: We recruited American Indian adults aged 50–75 years who were not current with CRC screening. Participants viewed a 9-min multimedia decision aid that used narrative vignettes to provide educational information about screening along with messages to address culturally specific barriers and values uncovered in formative research. We conducted a single-arm (pre–post) study and assessed screening-related outcomes at baseline and immediately after viewing the decision aid.Results: Among n=104 participants, knowledge scores increased from a mean of 36% correct to 76% correct. Participants also had statistically significant increases in positive attitudes, perceived social norms, self-efficacy, and intent. The proportion of participants who identified a preference for a specific CRC screening modality rose from 81% identified at pre-intervention to 93% post-intervention (p=0.013).Conclusion: Our study provides promising new findings that our culturally adapted decision aid is efficacious in educating American Indian adults about CRC screening and increases their screening intentions and ability to state modality preferences. Future research is needed to test the decision aid as a component of CRC screening interventions with American Indian adults.

Development and pilot-testing of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for individuals with varying health literacy levels

ObjectiveMaking an informed decision about colorectal cancer screening requires health literacy. Our aim was to develop and pilot-test a computer-based decision aid to support informed decision making about whether or not to participate in colorectal cancer screening for individuals with varying health literacy levels in the Netherlands. MethodsFirst, we designed and adapted the decision aid prototype among 25 individuals with low (n = 15) and adequate (n = 10) health literacy. Second, we used a before/after study to assess changes in knowledge, attitude, intention, decisional conflict, deliberation, anxiety and risk perception in an online survey among 81 individuals eligible for colorectal cancer screening with low (n = 35) and adequate (n = 46) health literacy. ResultsThe decision aid was acceptable, comprehensible, reduced decisional conflict, increased deliberation and improved knowledge about colorectal cancer screening, but not about colorectal cancer, among individuals with adequate and low health literacy. Usability was slightly higher for participants with adequate health literacy compared to those with low health literacy. ConclusionThe decision aid is promising in supporting informed decision making about colorectal cancer screening, also among individuals with lower health literacy. Practice implicationsFurther refinement of interactive features, such as videos, animations and the values clarification exercise, is needed to increase the usability of the decision aid.

Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces mortality, yet more than one third of age-eligible Americans are unscreened. To examine the effect of a digital health intervention, Mobile Patient Technology for Health-CRC (mPATH-CRC), on rates of CRC screening. Randomized clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02088333). 6 community-based primary care practices. 450 patients (223 in the mPATH-CRC group and 227 in usual care) scheduled for a primary care visit and due for routine CRC screening. An iPad application that displays a CRC screening decision aid, lets patients order their own screening tests, and sends automated follow-up electronic messages to support patients. The primary outcome was chart-verified completion of CRC screening within 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were ability to state a screening preference, intention to receive screening, screening discussions, and orders for screening tests. All outcome assessors were blinded to randomization. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; 37% of participants had limited health literacy, and 53% had annual incomes less than $20000. Screening was completed by 30% of mPATH-CRC participants and 15% of those receiving usual care (logistic regression odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.6 to 4.0]). Compared with usual care, more mPATH-CRC participants could state a screening preference, planned to be screened within 6 months, discussed screening with their provider, and had a screening test ordered. Half of mPATH-CRC participants (53%; 118 of 223) "self-ordered" a test via the program. Participants were English speakers in a single health care system. A digital health intervention that allows patients to self-order tests can increase CRC screening. Future research should identify methods for implementing similar interventions in clinical care. National Cancer Institute.

Design of a randomized clinical trial of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid to promote appropriate screening in community-dwelling older adults.

Appropriate colorectal cancer screening in older adults should be aligned with the likelihood of net benefit. In general, patient decision aids improve knowledge and values clarity, but in older adults, they may also help patients identify their individual likelihood of benefit and foster individualized decision-making. We report on the design of a randomized clinical trial to understand the effects of a patient decision aid on appropriate colorectal cancer screening. This report includes a description of the baseline characteristics of participants. English-speaking primary care patients aged 70-84 years who were not currently up to date with screening were recruited into a randomized clinical trial comparing a tailored colorectal cancer screening decision aid with an attention control. The intervention group received a decision aid that included a values clarification exercise and individualized decision-making worksheet, while the control group received an educational pamphlet on safe driving behaviors. The primary outcome was appropriate screening at 6 months based on chart review. We used a composite measure to define appropriate screening as screening for participants in good health, a discussion about screening for patients in intermediate health, and no screening for patients in poor health. Health state was objectively determined using patients' Charlson Comorbidity Index score and age. A total of 14 practices in central North Carolina participated as part of a practice-based research network. In total, 424 patients were recruited to participate and completed a baseline visit. Overall, 79% of participants were White and 58% female, with a mean age of 76.8 years. Patient characteristics between groups were similar by age, gender, race, education, insurance coverage, or work status. Overall, 70% had some college education or more, 57% were married, and virtually all had Medicare insurance (90%). The three primary medical conditions among the cohort were a history of diabetes, pneumonia, and cancer (28%, 26%, and 21%, respectively). We designed a randomized clinical trial to test a novel use of a patient decision aid to promote appropriate colorectal cancer screening and have recruited a diverse study population that seems similar between the intervention and control groups. The study should be able to determine the ability of a patient decision aid to increase individualized and appropriate colorectal cancer screening.

Effect of Combined Patient Decision Aid and Patient Navigation vs Usual Care for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Vulnerable Patient Population

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, especially among vulnerable populations. Decision aids and patient navigation are potentially complementary interventions for improving CRC screening rates, but their combined effect on screening completion is unknown. To determine the combined effect of a CRC screening decision aid and patient navigation compared with usual care on CRC screening completion. In this randomized clinical trial, data were collected from January 2014 to March 2016 at 2 community health center practices, 1 in North Carolina and 1 in New Mexico, serving vulnerable populations. Patients ages 50 to 75 years who had average CRC risk, spoke English or Spanish, were not current with recommended CRC screening, and were attending primary care visits were recruited and randomized 1:1 to intervention or control arms. Intervention participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid in English or Spanish immediately before their clinician encounter. The decision aid promoted screening and presented colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing as screening options. After the clinician encounter, intervention patients received support for screening completion from a bilingual patient navigator. Control participants viewed a food safety video before the encounter and otherwise received usual care. The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 6 months of the index study visit assessed by blinded medical record review. Characteristics of the 265 participants were as follows: their mean age was 58 years; 173 (65%) were female, 164 (62%) were Latino; 40 (15%) were white non-Latino; 61 (23%) were black or of mixed race; 191 (78%) had a household income of less than $20 000; 101 (38%) had low literacy; 75 (28%) were on Medicaid; and 91 (34%) were uninsured. Intervention participants were more likely to complete CRC screening within 6 months (68% vs 27%); adjusted-difference, 40 percentage points (95% CI, 29-51 percentage points). The intervention was more effective in women than in men (50 vs 21 percentage point increase, interaction P = .02). No effect modification was observed across other subgroups. A patient decision aid plus patient navigation increased the rate of CRC screening completion in compared with usual care invulnerable primary care patients. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02054598.

Providing Quantitative Information and a Nudge to Undergo Stool Testing in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Guidelines recommend that patient decision aids should provide quantitative information about probabilities of potential outcomes, but the impact of this information is unknown. Behavioral economics suggests that patients confused by quantitative information could benefit from a "nudge" towards one option. We conducted a pilot randomized trial to estimate the effect sizes of presenting quantitative information and a nudge. Primary care patients (n = 213) eligible for colorectal cancer screening viewed basic screening information and were randomized to view (a) quantitative information (quantitative module), (b) a nudge towards stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (nudge module), (c) neither a nor b, or (d) both a and b. Outcome measures were perceived colorectal cancer risk, screening intent, preferred test, and decision conflict, measured before and after viewing the decision aid, and screening behavior at 6 months. Patients viewing the quantitative module were more likely to be screened than those who did not ( P = 0.012). Patients viewing the nudge module had a greater increase in perceived colorectal cancer risk than those who did not ( P = 0.041). Those viewing the quantitative module had a smaller increase in perceived risk than those who did not ( P = 0.046), and the effect was moderated by numeracy. Among patients with high numeracy who did not view the nudge module, those who viewed the quantitative module had a greater increase in intent to undergo FIT ( P = 0.028) than did those who did not. The limitations of this study were the limited sample size and single healthcare system. Adding quantitative information to a decision aid increased uptake of colorectal cancer screening, while adding a nudge to undergo FIT did not increase uptake. Further research on quantitative information in decision aids is warranted.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions.

Low-income, low-literacy, limited English-proficient populations have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and experience poor patient-provider communication and decision-making processes around screening. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of a CRC screening decision aid on screening-related communication and decision making in primary care visits. RCT with data collected from patients at baseline and immediately after the provider encounter. Patients aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening, were recruited from two safety net clinics in North Carolina and New Mexico (data collection, January 2014-September 2015; analysis, 2015). Participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid or a food safety (control) video immediately before their provider encounter. CRC screening-related knowledge, discussion, intent, test preferences, and test ordering. The study population (N=262) had a mean age of 58.3 years and was 66% female, 61% Latino, 17% non-Latino black, and 16% non-Latino white. Among Latino participants, 71% preferred Spanish. Compared with controls, intervention participants had greater screening-related knowledge (on average 4.6 vs 2.8 of six knowledge items correct, adjusted difference [AD]=1.8, 95% CI=1.5, 2.1) and were more likely to report screening discussion (71.0% vs 45.0%, AD=26.1%, 95% CI=14.3%, 38.0%) and high screening intent (93.1% vs 84.7%, AD=9.0%, 95% CI=2.0%, 16.0%). Intervention participants were more likely to indicate a specific screening test preference (93.1% vs 68.0%, AD=26.5%, 95% CI=17.2%, 35.8%) and to report having a test ordered (56.5% vs 32.1%, AD=25.8%, 95% CI=14.4%, 37.2%). Viewing a CRC screening decision aid before a primary care encounter improves knowledge and shared decision making around screening in a racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse safety net clinic population. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054598.

Culture and medical decision making: Healthcare consumer perspectives in Japan and the United States.

Two studies identified core value influences on medical decision-making processes across and within cultures. In Study 1, Japanese and American adults reported desired levels of medical decision-making influence across conditions that varied in seriousness. Cultural antecedents (interdependence, independence, and power distance) were also measured. In Study 2, American adults reviewed a colorectal cancer screening decision aid. Decision preparedness was measured along with interdependence, independence, and desire for medical information. In Study 1, higher interdependence predicted stronger desire for decision-making information in both countries, but was significantly stronger in Japan. The path from information desire to decision-making influence desire was significant only in Japan. The independence path to desire for decision-making influence was significant only in the United States. Power distance effects negatively predicted desire for decision-making influence only in the United States. For Study 2, high (low) interdependents and women (men) in the United States felt that a colorectal cancer screening decision aid helped prepare them more (less) for a medical consultation. Low interdependent men were at significantly higher risk for low decision preparedness. Study 1 suggests that Japanese participants may tend to view medical decision-making influence as an interdependent, information sharing exchange, whereas American respondents may be more interested in power sharing that emphasizes greater independence. Study 2 demonstrates the need to assess value influences on medical decision-making processes within and across cultures and suggests that individually tailored versions of decision aids may optimize decision preparedness.

Health Literacy and Computer-Assisted Instruction: Usability and Patient Preference

The authors investigated the feasibility of using computer-assisted instruction in patients of varying literacy levels by examining patients’ preferences for learning and their ability to use 2 computer-based educational programs. A total of 263 participants 50–74 years of age with varying health literacy levels interacted with 1 of 2 educational computer programs as part of a randomized trial of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid. A baseline and postprogram evaluation survey were completed. More than half (56%) of the participants had limited health literacy. Regardless of literacy level, doctors were the most commonly used source of medical information—used frequently by 85% of limited and adequate literacy patients. In multivariate logistic regression, only those with health insurance (OR = 2.35, p = .06) and computer use experience (OR = 0.39, p = .03) predicted the ability to complete the programs without assistance compared with those without health insurance or prior computer use, respectively. Although patients with limited health literacy had less computer experience, the majority completed the programs without any assistance and stated that they learned more than they would have from a brochure. Future research should investigate ways that computer-assisted instruction can be incorporated in medical care to enhance patient understanding.

Capsule commentary on Nápoles et. al, Physician counseling on colorectal cancer screening and receipt of screening among Latino patients.

In this cross-sectional study, Napoles and colleagues conducted a telephone survey to identify high-yield physician colorectal cancer (CRC) screening counseling behaviors among Latino patients, a population with known CRC disparities and relatively low screening rates. Perceived strength of physicians’ recommendations for CRC screening was associated with patients’ reported CRC screening completion; explanation of CRC risks and tests was also associated with endoscopy screening. These findings have important practice implications; specific physician communication practices may improve CRC screening completion among Latinos, in addition to strategies addressing barriers such as lack of access to care, knowledge, and language concordance.1 This study is limited by its focus on the role of physicians rather than the health care team. A recent study noted that the number of times a patient encounters a health message is positively associated with uptake.2 Does the message have to come from the physician? As the authors acknowledge, physicians face significant time pressures during primary care visits. The study could have been strengthened by assessing CRC screening counseling behaviors by not only physicians, but also other members of the health care team such as physician assistants, nurses, and medical assistants. While the strongest association was found between strength of physician recommendation and CRC screening completion, a decision still must be made regarding the type of screening. In a team-based approach, the physician or another health care provider could guide patients using a culturally and linguistically adapted CRC screening decision aid.3,4 A study by Hawley et. al found that both race/ethnicity and test attributes (e.g., accuracy and frequency) were associated with patient preferences for CRC screening tests. This study asked patients whether the physician discussed potential barriers to CRC screening but did not ask whether the physician explained different test options and helped the patient choose one or whether the patient would make the same decision again. Future research could investigate whether shared decision making incorporating patient values, preferences, and priorities as well as provider knowledge of local resource constraints would help increase completion of CRC screening by average-risk Latino patients.

Cultural and Linguistic Adaptation of a Multimedia Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Spanish-Speaking Latinos

Cultural and Linguistic Adaptation of a Multimedia Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Spanish-Speaking Latinos

Cultural and Linguistic Adaptation of a Multimedia Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Spanish-Speaking Latinos

As the United States becomes more linguistically and culturally diverse, there is a need for effective health communication interventions that target diverse, vulnerable populations, including Latinos. To address such disparities, health communication interventionists often face the challenge to adapt existing interventions from English into Spanish in a way that retains essential elements of the original intervention while also addressing the linguistic needs and cultural perspectives of the target population. The authors describe the conceptual framework, context, rationale, methods, and findings of a formative research process used in creating a Spanish-language version of an evidence-based (English language) multimedia colorectal cancer screening decision aid. The multistep process included identification of essential elements of the existing intervention, literature review, assessment of the regional context and engagement of key stakeholders, and solicitation of direct input from target population. The authors integrated these findings in the creation of the new adapted intervention. They describe how they used this process to identify and integrate sociocultural themes such as personalism (personalismo), familism (familismo), fear (miedo), embarrassment (verguenza), power distance (respeto), machismo, and trust (confianza) into the Spanish-language decision aid.

Testing a Spanish-language colorectal cancer screening decision aid in Latinos with limited English proficiency: results from a pre-post trial and four month follow-up survey.

BackgroundCompared with non-Latinos, Latinos in the US have low rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and low rates of knowledge regarding CRC screening tests and guidelines. Spanish speaking Latinos have particularly low CRC screening rates and screening knowledge. Our purpose was twofold: (1) to evaluate the effect of a computer-based, Spanish-language CRC screening decision aid on screening knowledge, intent to obtain screening, and screening self-efficacy in a community sample of Latinos with limited English proficiency (LEP); and (2) to survey these decision aid viewers at four months to determine their rates of CRC discussions with a health care provider as well as their rates of screening test completion.MethodsWe recruited 50-75 year old Latinos with LEP who were not current with CRC. Participants screening viewed a 14 minute multimedia decision aid that addresses CRC screening rationale, recommendations, and options. We conducted an uncontrolled (pre-post) study in which we assessed screening knowledge, self-efficacy, and intent at baseline and immediately after decision aid viewing. We also conducted a follow-up telephone survey of participants at four months to examine rates of patient-provider screening discussions and test completion.ResultsAmong n = 80 participants, knowledge scores increased from 20% (before) to 72% (after) decision aid viewing (absolute difference [95%CI]: 52% [46, 59]). The proportion with high screening self-efficacy increased from 67% to 92% (25% [13, 37]); the proportion with high screening intent increased from 63% to 95% (32% [21, 44]). We reached 68 (85%) of 80 participants eligible for the follow-up survey. Of these 36 (53%) reported discussing screening with a provider and 13 (19%) completed a test.ConclusionViewing a Spanish-language decision aid increased CRC screening knowledge, self-efficacy, and intent among Latinos with LEP. Decision aid viewing appeared to promote both CRC screening discussions with health care providers and test completion. The decision aid may be an effective tool for promoting CRC screening and reducing screening disparities in this population.

Testing a Spanish-language colorectal cancer screening decision aid in Latinos with limited English proficiency: Results from a pre-post trial and four month follow-up survey

Testing a Spanish-language colorectal cancer screening decision aid in Latinos with limited English proficiency: Results from a pre-post trial and four month follow-up survey

Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making.

Decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been shown to enable patients to identify a preferred screening option, but the extent to which such tools facilitate shared decision making (SDM) from the perspective of the provider is less well established. Our goal was to elicit provider feedback regarding the impact of a CRC screening decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting. Cross-sectional survey. Primary care providers participating in a clinical trial evaluating the impact of a novel CRC screening decision aid on SDM and adherence. Perceptions of the impact of the tool on decision-making and implementation issues. Twenty-nine of 42 (71%) eligible providers responded, including 27 internists and two nurse practitioners. The majority (>60%) felt that use of the tool complimented their usual approach, increased patient knowledge, helped patients identify a preferred screening option, improved the quality of decision making, saved time and increased patients' desire to get screened. Respondents were more neutral is their assessment of whether the tool improved the overall quality of the patient visit or patient satisfaction. Fewer than 50% felt that the tool would be easy to implement into their practices or that it would be widely used by their colleagues. Decision aids for CRC screening can improve the quality and efficiency of SDM from the provider perspective but future use is likely to depend on the extent to which barriers to implementation can be addressed.

The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.

Eliciting patients' preferences within a framework of shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as a strategy for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of a novel decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting. An interactive, computer-based decision aid for CRC screening was developed and evaluated within the context of a randomized controlled trial. A total of 665 average-risk patients (mean age, 57 years; 60% female; 63% black, 6% Hispanic) were allocated to 1 of 2 intervention arms (decision aid alone, decision aid plus personalized risk assessment) or a control arm. The interventions were delivered just prior to a scheduled primary care visit. Outcome measures (patient preferences, knowledge, satisfaction with the decision-making process [SDMP], concordance between patient preference and test ordered, and intentions) were evaluated using prestudy/poststudy visit questionnaires and electronic scheduling. Overall, 95% of patients in the intervention arms identified a preferred screening option based on values placed on individual test features. Mean cumulative knowledge, SDMP, and intention scores were significantly higher for both intervention groups compared with the control group. Concordance between patient preference and test ordered was 59%. Patients who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to have a test ordered than those who preferred an alternative option (83% v. 70%; P < 0.01). Intention scores were significantly higher when the test ordered reflected patient preferences. Our interactive computer-based decision aid facilitates SDM, but overall effectiveness is determined by the extent to which providers comply with patient preferences.

The effect of offering different numbers of colorectal cancer screening test options in a decision aid: a pilot randomized trial

BackgroundDecision aids can improve decision making processes, but the amount and type of information that they should attempt to communicate is controversial. We sought to compare, in a pilot randomized trial, two colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision aids that differed in the number of screening options presented.MethodsAdults ages 48–75 not currently up to date with screening were recruited from the community and randomized to view one of two versions of our previously tested CRC screening decision aid. The first version included five screening options: fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, a combination of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and barium enema. The second discussed only the two most frequently selected screening options, FOBT and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were differences in screening interest and test preferences between groups after decision aid viewing. Patient test preference was elicited first without any associated out-of-pocket costs (OPC), and then with the following costs: FOBT-$10, sigmoidoscopy-$50, barium enema-$50, and colonoscopy-$200.Results62 adults participated: 25 viewed the 5-option decision aid, and 37 viewed the 2-option version. Mean age was 54 (range 48–72), 58% were women, 71% were White, 24% African-American; 58% had completed at least a 4-year college degree. Comparing participants that viewed the 5-option version with participants who viewed the 2-option version, there were no differences in screening interest after viewing (1.8 vs. 1.9, t-test p = 0.76). Those viewing the 2-option version were somewhat more likely to choose colonoscopy than those viewing the 5-option version when no out of pocket costs were assumed (68% vs. 46%, p = 0.11), but not when such costs were imposed (41% vs. 42%, p = 1.00).ConclusionThe number of screening options available does not appear to have a large effect on interest in colorectal cancer screening. The effect of offering differing numbers of options may affect test choice when out-of-pocket costs are not considered.