Table 3

Participants’ preferences for risk assessments and the relative importance of each attribute in asymptomatic and symptomatic context cohorts (conditional logistic regression analysis)

Asymptomatic context cohortSymptomatic context cohortP value for difference between cohorts
N participants601601<0.001 (between models as a whole)
N observations16 22716 227
Pseudo R20.09750.2118
Constant
 No risk assessment−0.679 (−0.823 to −0.536)−0.829 (−0.986 to −0.672)0.165
Method of risk assessment
 Questionnaire or data accessReferenceReference
 Blood test0.321 (0.194 to 0.448)0.956 (0.822 to 1.090)<0.001
 Non-invasive test0.316 (0.207 to 0.425)0.717 (0.602 to 0.832)<0.001
 Wearable device−0.184 (−0.353 to −0.014)0.273 (0.101 to 0.444)<0.001
Type of risk assessment
 Non-geneticReferenceReference
 Genetic−0.007 (−0.153 to 0.138)0.147 (−0.011 to 0.305)0.163
Location of risk assessment
 HomeReferenceReference
 Community clinic/pharmacy−0.029 (−0.141 to 0.084)0.106 (−0.011 to 0.223)0.107
 General practice−0.097 (−0.213 to 0.018)−0.009 (−0.133 to 0.114)0.311
 Hospital−0.221 (−0.330 to −0.113)−0.029 (−0.136 to 0.078)0.014
Frequency of risk assessment
 One-off single eventReferenceReference
 Once every 5 years−0.002 (−0.137 to 0.133)0.006 (−0.139 to 0.150)0.941
 Once every year−0.056 (−0.172 to 0.059)−0.001 (−0.122 to 0.120)0.512
 Continuously for 2 weeks0.205 (−0.043 to 0.454)−0.032 (−0.283 to 0.219)0.185
 Constantly−0.034 (−0.198 to 0.130)0.099 (−0.073 to 0.270)0.269
Accuracy
 Specificity0.042 (0.035 to 0.049)0.048 (0.040 to 0.055)0.262
 Sensitivity0.059 (0.053 to 0.066)0.081 (0.074 to 0.088)<0.001
  • Results where p<0.05 are highlighted in bold.

  • Accuracy levels were presented as number of people out of every 100 people who have a risk assessment whose risk will be overestimated [specificity]/underestimated [sensitivity].

  • Positive coefficients indicate a preference for the specified level compared to the reference; negative coefficients indicate a preference for the reference compared to the specified level.