Decisions about Pap tests: What influences women and providers?
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.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 68 (2009)
Issue (Month): 10 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Robert Bartels & Denzil Fiebig & Arthur Soest, 2006.
"Consumers and experts: an econometric analysis of the demand for water heaters,"
Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 369-391, June.
- Bartels, R. & Fiebig, D.G. & van Soest, A.H.O., 2003. "Consumers and Experts : An Econometric Analysis of the Demand for Water Heaters," Discussion Paper 2003-26, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Leonie Burgess & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Jordan Louviere, 2012. "Design of Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 42 Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Leonie Burgess & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Design of Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, chapter 39 Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Andrews, Donald W. K., 1998. "Hypothesis testing with a restricted parameter space," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 155-199, May.
- Donald W.K. Andrews, 1994. "Hypothesis Testing with a Restricted Parameter Space," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1060R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
- Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2, June.
- Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
- 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.
- 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.
- Rosalie Viney & Marion Haas & Rochelle Belkar & Denzil G. Fiebig, 2004. "Why worry about awareness in choice problems? Econometric analysis of screening for cervical cancer," Econometric Society 2004 Australasian Meetings 109, Econometric Society.
- 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.
- Culyer, A J, 1989. "The Normative Economics of Health Care Finance and Provision," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 34-58, Spring.
- 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. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)