IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jhecon/v58y2018icp228-252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Increasing breast-cancer screening uptake: A randomized controlled experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Goldzahl, Léontine
  • Hollard, Guillaume
  • Jusot, Florence

Abstract

Early screening increases the likelihood of detecting cancer, thereby improving survival rates. National screening programs have been established in which eligible women receive a letter containing a voucher for a free screening. Even so, mammography use is often considered as remaining too low. We test four behavioral interventions in a large-scale randomized experiment involving 26,495 women. Our main assumption is that, due to biases in decision-making, women may be sensitive to the content and presentation of the invitation letter they receive. None of our treatments had any significant impact on mammography use. Sub-sample analysis suggests that this lack of a significant impact holds also for women invited for the first time and low-income women.

Suggested Citation

  • Goldzahl, Léontine & Hollard, Guillaume & Jusot, Florence, 2018. "Increasing breast-cancer screening uptake: A randomized controlled experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 228-252.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:58:y:2018:i:c:p:228-252
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629617303090
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John List & Azeem Shaikh & Yang Xu, 2016. "Multiple Hypothesis Testing in Experimental Economics," Artefactual Field Experiments 00402, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Carrieri, Vincenzo & Wuebker, Ansgar, 2013. "Assessing inequalities in preventive care use in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 247-257.
    3. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7402 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ian Ayres & Sophie Raseman & Alice Shih, 2013. "Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments that Peer Comparison Feedback Can Reduce Residential Energy Usage," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(5), pages 992-1022, October.
    5. Vincenzo Carrieri & Ansgar Wuebker, 2016. "Quasi-Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Health Information on Preventive Behaviour in Europe," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 78(6), pages 765-791, December.
    6. Matteo M. Galizzi, 2014. "What Is Really Behavioral in Behavioral Health Policy? And Does It Work?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 25-60.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/14771 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Pedro Carneiro & James J. Heckman & Edward J. Vytlacil, 2011. "Estimating Marginal Returns to Education," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2754-2781, October.
    9. Soohyung Lee & Azeem M. Shaikh, 2014. "Multiple Testing And Heterogeneous Treatment Effects: Re‐Evaluating The Effect Of Progresa On School Enrollment," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 612-626, June.
    10. repec:hrv:faseco:32785047 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Jeffrey R Kling & Jeffrey B Liebman & Lawrence F Katz, 2007. "Experimental Analysis of Neighborhood Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 83-119, January.
    12. Marion Devaux, 2015. "Income-related inequalities and inequities in health care services utilisation in 18 selected OECD countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(1), pages 21-33, January.
    13. John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian & Katherine L. Milkman, 2015. "The Effect of Providing Peer Information on Retirement Savings Decisions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 70(3), pages 1161-1201, June.
    14. Nicolas Sirven & Zeynep Or & Florence Jusot, 2012. "Variations in preventive care utilisation in Europe," Post-Print hal-01593796, HAL.
    15. Saurabh Bhargava & Dayanand Manoli, 2015. "Psychological Frictions and the Incomplete Take-Up of Social Benefits: Evidence from an IRS Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(11), pages 3489-3529, November.
    16. Bronchetti, Erin Todd & Huffman, David B. & Magenheim, Ellen, 2015. "Attention, intentions, and follow-through in preventive health behavior: Field experimental evidence on flu vaccination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 270-291.
    17. Hongbin Cai & Yuyu Chen & Hanming Fang, 2009. "Observational Learning: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 864-882, June.
    18. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    19. Bertrand, Marianne & Shafir, Eldar & Mullainathan, Sendhil, 2006. "Behavioral Economics and Marketing in Aid of Decision Making Among the Poor," Scholarly Articles 2962609, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    20. Russell Golman & David Hagmann & George Loewenstein, 2017. "Information Avoidance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(1), pages 96-135, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bertoni, Marco & Corazzini, Luca & Robone, Silvana, 2019. "Promoting Breast Cancer Screening Take-Ups with Zero Cost: Evidence from an Experiment on Formatting Invitation Letters in Italy," IZA Discussion Papers 12193, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. repec:eee:jhecon:v:62:y:2018:i:c:p:95-104 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Carrera, Mariana & Royer, Heather & Stehr, Mark & Sydnor, Justin & Taubinsky, Dmitry, 2018. "The limits of simple implementation intentions: Evidence from a field experiment on making plans to exercise," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 95-104.
    4. repec:zbw:espost:184648 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cancer screening; Randomized controlled experiment; Behavioral interventions;

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:58:y:2018:i:c:p:228-252. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505560 .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.