IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i3p204-215.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling Individual Patient Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Their Tolerance for Complications Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Glen B. Taksler
  • Adam T. Perzynski
  • Michael W. Kattan

Abstract

Introduction . Recommendations for colorectal cancer screening encourage patients to choose among various screening methods based on individual preferences for benefits, risks, screening frequency, and discomfort. We devised a model to illustrate how individuals with varying tolerance for screening complications risk might decide on their preferred screening strategy. Methods . We developed a discrete-time Markov mathematical model that allowed hypothetical individuals to maximize expected lifetime utility by selecting screening method, start age, stop age, and frequency. Individuals could choose from stool-based testing every 1 to 3 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 1 to 20 years with annual stool-based testing, colonoscopy every 1 to 20 years, or no screening. We compared the life expectancy gained from the chosen strategy with the life expectancy available from a benchmark strategy of decennial colonoscopy. Results . For an individual at average risk of colorectal cancer who was risk neutral with respect to screening complications (and therefore was willing to undergo screening if it would actuarially increase life expectancy), the model predicted that he or she would choose colonoscopy every 10 years, from age 53 to 73 years, consistent with national guidelines. For a similar individual who was moderately averse to screening complications risk (and therefore required a greater increase in life expectancy to accept potential risks of colonoscopy), the model predicted that he or she would prefer flexible sigmoidoscopy every 12 years with annual stool-based testing, with 93% of the life expectancy benefit of decennial colonoscopy. For an individual with higher risk aversion, the model predicted that he or she would prefer 2 lifetime flexible sigmoidoscopies, 20 years apart, with 70% of the life expectancy benefit of decennial colonoscopy. Conclusion . Mathematical models may formalize how individuals with different risk attitudes choose between various guideline-recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Glen B. Taksler & Adam T. Perzynski & Michael W. Kattan, 2017. "Modeling Individual Patient Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Their Tolerance for Complications Risk," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 204-215, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:204-215
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16679161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16679161
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16679161?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guiso, Luigi & Sapienza, Paola & Zingales, Luigi, 2018. "Time varying risk aversion," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 403-421.
    2. David Laibson & Andrea Repetto & Jeremy Tobacman, 2005. "Estimating Discount Functions with Consumption Choices over the Lifecycle," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000643, UCLA Department of Economics.
    3. Robert Parrino & Allen M. Poteshman & Michael S. Weisbach, 2005. "Measuring Investment Distortions when Risk-Averse Managers Decide Whether to Undertake Risky Projects," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 34(1), Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kemptner, Daniel & Tolan, Songül, 2018. "The role of time preferences in educational decision making," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 25-39.
    2. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    3. Hinnosaar, Marit, 2016. "Time inconsistency and alcohol sales restrictions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 108-131.
    4. Cardak, Buly A. & Martin, Vance L., 2023. "Household willingness to take financial risk: Stockmarket movements and life‐cycle effects," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    5. Goedde-Menke, Michael & Langer, Thomas & Pfingsten, Andreas, 2014. "Impact of the financial crisis on bank run risk – Danger of the days after," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 522-533.
    6. Ongena, Steven & Savaşer, Tanseli & Şişli Ciamarra, Elif, 2022. "CEO incentives and bank risk over the business cycle," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    7. Zanetti, Francesco, 2014. "Housing and relative risk aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 23-25.
    8. Dräger, Lena & Lamla, Michael J. & Pfajfar, Damjan, 2020. "The Hidden Heterogeneity of Inflation and Interest Rate Expectations: The Role of Preferences," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-666, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, revised Feb 2023.
    9. Daniel Agness & Travis Baseler & Sylvain Chassang & Pascaline Dupas & Erik Snowberg, 2022. "Valuing the Time of the Self-Employed," Working Papers 2022-2, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    10. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    11. Piccoli, Luca & Tiezzi, Silvia, 2021. "Rational addiction and time-consistency: An empirical test," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    12. Denny,Elaine Kathryn & Dow,David & Levy,Gabriella & Villamizar-Chaparro,Mateo, 2022. "Extortion and Civic Engagement among Guatemalan Deportees," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10020, The World Bank.
    13. Luiz Vitiello & Ser-Huang Poon, 2022. "Option pricing with random risk aversion," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 1665-1684, May.
    14. Abraham Aldama & Mateo Vásquez-Cortés & Lauren Elyssa Young, 2019. "Fear and citizen coordination against dictatorship," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(1), pages 103-125, January.
    15. Zongxia Liang & Xiaodong Luo & Fengyi Yuan, 2023. "Consumption-investment decisions with endogenous reference point and drawdown constraint," Mathematics and Financial Economics, Springer, volume 17, number 6, June.
    16. Martina Bozzola & Robert Finger, 2021. "Stability of risk attitude, agricultural policies and production shocks: evidence from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(3), pages 477-501.
    17. Haan, Peter & Prowse, Victoria L., 2010. "The Design of Unemployment Transfers: Evidence from a Dynamic Structural Life-Cycle Model," IZA Discussion Papers 4792, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    19. Eduardo B. Andrade & Terrance Odean & Shengle Lin, 2016. "Bubbling with Excitement: An Experiment," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 20(2), pages 447-466.
    20. Asli Demirgüç-Kunt & Ross Levine, 2009. "Finance and Inequality: Theory and Evidence," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 287-318, November.

    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:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:204-215. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.