Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes
AbstractEconomic evaluations generally fail to incorporate elements of intangible costs and benefits, such as anxiety and discomfort associated with the screening test and diagnostic test, as well as the magnitude of utility associated with a reduction in the risk of dying from cancer. In the present analysis, 750 respondents were interviewed and asked to rank, according to priority, a number of alternative screening programme set-ups. Focus was on colorectal cancer screening and breast cancer screening. The alternative programmes varied with respect to number of tests performed, risk reduction obtained, probability of a false positive outcome and extent of co-payment. Stated preferences were analysed using discrete ranking modelling and the relative weighting of the programme attributes identified. Applying discrete choice methods to elicit preferences within this area of health care seems justified by the face validity of the results. The signs of the coefficients are in accordance with a priori hypotheses. This paper suggests that large-scale surveys focusing on individuals' preferences for cancer screening programmes may contribute significantly to the quality of economic evaluations within this field of health care. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.
Volume (Year): 10 (2001)
Issue (Month): 7 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Holund, Berit & Andersen, Per, 1995. "A cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer screening: health policy implications," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 35-51, October.
- Weinstein, Milton C & Shepard, Donald S & Pliskin, Joseph S, 1980. "The Economic Value of Changing Mortality Probabilities: A Decision-Theoretic Approach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 94(2), pages 373-96, March.
- Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273.
- Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1987. "An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 89-114, February.
- Jones-Lee, Michael W, 1974. "The Value of Changes in the Probability of Death or Injury," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(4), pages 835-49, July/Aug..
- Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Jes S�ggard & Ole Kronborg, 1998. "Colorectal cancer screening: efficiency and effectiveness," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 9-20.
- Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-24, December.
- Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
- Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Lubbe, Koos Th. N. & van Oortmarssen, Gerrit J. & van Agt, Heleen M. A. & van Ballegooijen, Marjolein & Habbema, J. Dik F., 1990. "Economic aspects of cervical cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 30(10), pages 1081-1087, January.
- Karen Gerard & Marian Shanahan & Jordan Louviere, 2003. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: A pilot study of breast screening participation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(9), pages 1073-1085.
- Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907.
- Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Kjær, Trine, 2011. "The influence of information and private versus public provision on preferences for screening for prostate cancer: A willingness-to-pay study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 277-289, August.
- Bech, Mickael, 2003. "Politicians' and hospital managers' trade-offs in the choice of reimbursement scheme: a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 261-275, December.
- Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439.
- Eline Aas, 2009. "Pecuniary compensation increases participation in screening for colorectal cancer," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 337-354.
- Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney, 2012. "Deriving utility weights for the EQ-5D-5L using a discrete choice experiment. CHERE Working Paper 2012/01," Working Papers 2012/01, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.