IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i5p586-600.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Charlotte Kelley Jones

    (Cancer Behavioural Science Cancer Prevention Group, King’s College, London, UK)

  • Suzanne Scott

    (Professor of Health Psychology, Queen Mary University London, London, UK)

  • Nora Pashayan

    (Professor of Applied Cancer Research, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK)

  • Stephen Morris

    (Rand Professor of Health Services Research, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK)

  • Yasmina Okan

    (Department of Communication, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
    Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, Leeds, UK)

  • Jo Waller

    (Professor of Cancer Behavioural Science, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK)

Abstract

Background A risk-stratified breast screening program could offer low-risk women less screening than is currently offered by the National Health Service. The acceptability of this approach may be enhanced if it corresponds to UK women’s screening preferences and values. Objectives To elicit and quantify preferences for low-risk screening options. Methods Women aged 40 to 70 y with no history of breast cancer took part in an online discrete choice experiment. We generated 32 hypothetical low-risk screening programs defined by 5 attributes (start age, end age, screening interval, risk of dying from breast cancer, and risk of overdiagnosis), the levels of which were systematically varied between the programs. Respondents were presented with 8 choice sets and asked to choose between 2 screening alternatives or no screening. Preference data were analyzed using conditional logit regression models. The relative importance of attributes and the mean predicted probability of choosing each program were estimated. Results Participants ( N  = 502) preferred all screening programs over no screening. An older starting age of screening, younger end age of screening, longer intervals between screening, and increased risk of dying had a negative impact on support for screening programs ( P  

Suggested Citation

  • Charlotte Kelley Jones & Suzanne Scott & Nora Pashayan & Stephen Morris & Yasmina Okan & Jo Waller, 2024. "Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(5), pages 586-600, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:5:p:586-600
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241254828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241254828
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241254828?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. John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1021-1041, September.
    2. Peter M. Sandman & Neil D. Weinstein & Paul Miller, 1994. "High Risk or Low: How Location on a “Risk Ladder” Affects Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 35-45, February.
    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. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Bliemer, Michiel C.J., 2019. "Information theoretic-based sampling of observations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 181-197.
    3. Liu, Jianing & Wen, Xiao & Jian, Sisi, 2024. "Toward better equity: Analyzing travel patterns through a neural network approach in mobility-as-a-service," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 110-126.
    4. Ioanna Arkoudi & Carlos Lima Azevedo & Francisco C. Pereira, 2021. "Combining Discrete Choice Models and Neural Networks through Embeddings: Formulation, Interpretability and Performance," Papers 2109.12042, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    5. Lan Anh Nguyen & Manh-Hung Nguyen & Viet-Ngu Hoang & Arnaud Reynaud & Michel Simioni & Clevo Wilson, 2024. "Tourists’ preferences and willingness to pay for protecting a World Heritage site from coastal erosion in Vietnam," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 27607-27628, November.
    6. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    7. Joan L. Walker & Yanqiao Wang & Mikkel Thorhauge & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2018. "D-efficient or deficient? A robustness analysis of stated choice experimental designs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 215-238, March.
    8. Larranaga, Ana Margarita & Arellana, Julian & Senna, Luiz Afonso, 2017. "Encouraging intermodality: A stated preference analysis of freight mode choice in Rio Grande do Sul," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 202-211.
    9. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Collins, Andrew T., 2016. "On determining priors for the generation of efficient stated choice experimental designs," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 10-14.
    10. Fukushige, Tatsuya & Fitch, Dillon T. & Handy, Susan, 2022. "Can an Incentive-Based approach to rebalancing a Dock-less Bike-share system Work? Evidence from Sacramento, California," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 181-194.
    11. Hong Fu & Yuehua Zhang & Yinuo An & Li Zhou & Yanling Peng & Rong Kong & Calum G. Turvey, 2022. "Subjective and objective risk perceptions and the willingness to pay for agricultural insurance: evidence from an in-the-field choice experiment in rural China," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 47(1), pages 98-121, March.
    12. Vincent,Jeffrey R. & Carson,Richard T. & Navrud,Stale & Ortiz Bobea,Ariel & Strand,Jon & Vincent,Jeffrey R. & Carson,Richard T. & Navrud,Stale & Ortiz Bobea,Ariel & Strand,Jon, 2014. "A"Delphi exercise"as a tool in Amazon rainforest valuation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7143, The World Bank.
    13. Apurba Shee & Calum G. Turvey & Ana Marr, 2021. "Heterogeneous Demand and Supply for an Insurance‐linked Credit Product in Kenya: A Stated Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 244-267, February.
    14. Vidale, E & Pettenella, D & Gatto, P & Secco, L, 23. "What can we sell behind timber production?," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 44, May.
    15. Strand, Jon & Carson, Richard T. & Navrud, Stale & Ortiz-Bobea, Ariel & Vincent, Jeffrey R., 2017. "Using the Delphi method to value protection of the Amazon rainforest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 475-484.
    16. Elin Spegel & Kristina Ek, 2022. "Valuing the Impacts of Landslides: A Choice Experiment Approach," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 163-181, March.
    17. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    18. Sydenham, Rikke Vognbjerg & Jarbøl, Dorte Ejg & Hansen, Malene Plejdrup & Justesen, Ulrik Stenz & Watson, Verity & Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov, 2022. "Prescribing antibiotics: Factors driving decision-making in general practice. A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    19. Alwosheel, Ahmad & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "Is your dataset big enough? Sample size requirements when using artificial neural networks for discrete choice analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 167-182.
    20. Milad Haghani & Majid Sarvi & Zahra Shahhoseini & Maik Boltes, 2016. "How Simple Hypothetical-Choice Experiments Can Be Utilized to Learn Humans’ Navigational Escape Decisions in Emergencies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, 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:44:y:2024:i:5:p:586-600. 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.