IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v68y2009i10p1766-1774.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decisions about Pap tests: What influences women and providers?

Author

Listed:
  • Fiebig, Denzil G.
  • Haas, Marion
  • Hossain, Ishrat
  • Street, Deborah J.
  • Viney, Rosalie

Abstract

Despite the success internationally of cervical screening programs debate continues about optimal program design. This includes increasing participation rates among under-screened women, reducing unnecessary early re-screening, improving accuracy of and confidence in screening tests, and determining the cost-effectiveness of program parameters, such as type of screening test, screening interval and target group. For all these issues, information about consumer and provider preferences and insight into the potential impact of any change to program design on consumer and provider behaviour are essential inputs into evidence-based health policy decision making. This paper reports the results of discrete choice experiments to investigate women's choices and providers' recommendations in relation to cervical screening in Australia. Separate experiments were conducted with women and general practitioners, with attributes selected to allow for investigation of how women and general practitioners differ in their preferences for attributes of screening programs. Our results indicate a considerable commonality in preferences but the alignment was not complete. Women put relatively more weight on cost, chance of a false positive and if the recommended screening interval were changed to one year.

Suggested Citation

  • Fiebig, Denzil G. & Haas, Marion & Hossain, Ishrat & Street, Deborah J. & Viney, Rosalie, 2009. "Decisions about Pap tests: What influences women and providers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 1766-1774, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:68:y:2009:i:10:p:1766-1774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00149-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrews, Donald W. K., 1998. "Hypothesis testing with a restricted parameter space," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 155-199, May.
    2. Robert Bartels & Denzil Fiebig & Arthur Soest, 2006. "Consumers and experts: an econometric analysis of the demand for water heaters," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 369-391, June.
    3. Rochelle Belkar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2006. "Why worry about awareness in choice problems? Econometric analysis of screening for cervical cancer," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1), pages 33-47, January.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    5. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    6. Leonie Burgess & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Jordan Louviere, 2012. "Design of Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Culyer, A J, 1989. "The Normative Economics of Health Care Finance and Provision," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 5(1), pages 34-58, Spring.
    8. Hall, Jane & Fiebig, Denzil G. & King, Madeleine T. & Hossain, Ishrat & Louviere, Jordan J., 2006. "What influences participation in genetic carrier testing?: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 520-537, May.
    9. Vick, Sandra & Scott, Anthony, 1998. "Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 587-605, October.
    10. Andrew M. Jones (ed.), 2006. "The Elgar Companion to Health Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3572.
    11. Bush, Judith, 2000. ""It's just part of being a woman": cervical screening, the body and femininity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 429-444, February.
    12. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    13. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    14. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J. & Quevedo, Jose L., 2006. "The effect of medical experience on the economic evaluation of health policies. A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 512-524, July.
    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. Brown, Paul & Panattoni, Laura & Cameron, Linda & Knox, Stephanie & Ashton, Toni & Tenbensel, Tim & Windsor, John, 2015. "Hospital sector choice and support for public hospital care in New Zealand: Results from a labeled discrete choice survey," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 118-127.
    2. Christine Michaels-Igbokwe & Mylene Lagarde & John Cairns & Fern Terris-Prestholt, 2015. "Designing a package of sexual and reproductive health and HIV outreach services to meet the heterogeneous preferences of young people in Malawi: results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Leonie Burgess & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Jordan Louviere, 2012. "Design of Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Neil J. Buckley & Katherine Cuff & Jeremiah Hurley & Logan McLeod & Robert Nuscheler & David Cameron, 2012. "Willingness‐to‐pay for parallel private health insurance: evidence from a laboratory experiment," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 137-166, February.
    5. Emily Lancsar & Joffre Swait, 2014. "Reconceptualising the External Validity of Discrete Choice Experiments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 951-965, October.
    6. Stuart J. Wright & Caroline M. Vass & Gene Sim & Michael Burton & Denzil G. Fiebig & Katherine Payne, 2018. "Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(5), pages 475-488, October.
    7. Meliyanni Johar & Denzil Fiebig & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2009. "Evaluating changes in women's attitudes towards cervical screening following a screening promotion campaign and a free vaccination program. CHERE Working Paper 2009/3," Working Papers 2009/3, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    8. Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Marion Haas & Denzil Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    9. Yanjun Sun & Yiping Wang & Huiying Zhang & Zhiqing Hu & Yuhao Ma & Yuan He, 2024. "What Breast Cancer Screening Program do Rural Women Prefer? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Jiangsu, China," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(4), pages 363-378, July.
    10. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    11. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Meliyanni Johar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Using repeated choice experiments to evaluate the impact of policy changes on cervical screening," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1845-1855, May.
    13. Gregory Merlo & Mieke Driel & Lisa Hall, 2020. "Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    14. Axel Mühlbacher & Christin Juhnke, 2013. "Patient Preferences Versus Physicians’ Judgement: Does it Make a Difference in Healthcare Decision Making?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 163-180, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    2. Madeleine King & Rosalie Viney & Ishrat Hossain & David Smith & Sandra Fowler & Elizabeth Savage & Bruce Armstrong, 2006. "Men?s preferences for treatment of early stage prostate cancer: Results from a discrete choice experiment, CHERE Working Paper 2006/14," Working Papers 2006/14, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    3. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    4. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    5. Jose Blandon & Spencer Henson & Towhidul Islam, 2009. "Marketing preferences of small-scale farmers in the context of new agrifood systems: a stated choice model," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 251-267.
    6. Robert Bartels & Denzil Fiebig & Arthur Soest, 2006. "Consumers and experts: an econometric analysis of the demand for water heaters," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 369-391, June.
    7. Eran Ben-Elia & Robert Ishaq & Yoram Shiftan, 2013. "“If only I had taken the other road...”: Regret, risk and reinforced learning in informed route-choice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 269-293, February.
    8. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    9. Hall, Jane & Fiebig, Denzil G. & King, Madeleine T. & Hossain, Ishrat & Louviere, Jordan J., 2006. "What influences participation in genetic carrier testing?: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 520-537, May.
    10. Wasi, Nada & Carson, Richard T., 2013. "The influence of rebate programs on the demand for water heaters: The case of New South Wales," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 645-656.
    11. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    12. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
    13. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    14. Denzil G. Fiebig & Rosalie Viney & Stephanie Knox & Marion Haas & Deborah J. Street & Arne R. Hole & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2017. "Consideration Sets and Their Role in Modelling Doctor Recommendations About Contraceptives," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 54-73, January.
    15. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2010. "Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 205-216, August.
    16. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    17. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    18. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    19. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    20. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Australia Cervical screening Discrete choice experiments Consumer and provider preferences Women;

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:socmed:v:68:y:2009:i:10:p:1766-1774. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.