IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i3p318-331.html

Leveling up: Treating Uptake as Endogenous May Increase the Value of Screening Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Jose A. Robles-Zurita

    (Department of Applied Economics (Statistics and Econometrics), University of Málaga, Málaga, Spain
    Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK)

  • Neil Hawkins

    (Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK)

  • Janet Bouttell

    (Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
    Centre for Healthcare Equipment and Technology Adoption, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK)

Abstract

Background We aimed to illustrate that health economists should consider individual heterogeneity when solving the problem of finding the optimal combination of sensitivity and specificity that maximizes the average health utility of a target population in a screening program. Methods A theoretical framework compares the solution under standard economics of diagnoses to the optimal combination under an endogenous uptake analysis, where screening participation is given by heterogenous health preferences. An applied example used calibrated parameters with real data from the bowel cancer screening program in the United Kingdom. Scenario analyses show how the results would change with parameter values, if disease risk and health utilities were not independent and if screening uptake were not completely determined by health preferences. Results A general theoretical result states that the endogenous uptake analysis leads to a weakly higher true- and false-positive rate than would be optimal under the standard approach. In the same way, the endogenous solution would lead to a lower uptake rate. The base-case scenario of the applied example illustrates that a screening program using the endogenous solution would generate 21.1% more quality-adjusted life-years than when using the standard solution. The scenario analyses show when the endogenous analysis is most valued and that the general result applies for a wide range of situations when theoretical assumptions are relaxed. Limitations The results obtained are valid under the assumptions made. Analysts should evaluate if those could hold in the applied screening context. Conclusions Individual heterogeneity and uptake decisions are relevant factors to consider in the problem of finding an optimal combination of sensitivity and specificity for a screening test. Highlights The value of screening programs can be higher if heterogeneity of preferences in the target population is considered. The optimal operation of a screening test depends on health utilities of the target population and on the heterogeneity of these health utilities. Under heterogeneity of health utilities, the optimal operation of a screening test does not maximize screening uptake. A general theoretical result states that the endogenous uptake analysis leads to a weakly higher true- and false-positive rate than would be optimal under a standard approach; this is true for a wide range of situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Jose A. Robles-Zurita & Neil Hawkins & Janet Bouttell, 2025. "Leveling up: Treating Uptake as Endogenous May Increase the Value of Screening Programs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(3), pages 318-331, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:3:p:318-331
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251319794
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251319794
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X251319794?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. Karen M. Kuntz & Sue J. Goldie, 2002. "Assessing the Sensitivity of Decision-Analytic Results to Unobserved Markers of Risk: Defining the Effects of Heterogeneity Bias," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(3), pages 218-227, June.
    2. Chapple, Alison & Ziebland, Sue & Hewitson, Paul & McPherson, Ann, 2008. "What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2425-2435, June.
    3. Anirban Basu & David Meltzer, 2007. "Value of Information on Preference Heterogeneity and Individualized Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(2), pages 112-127, March.
    4. Fern Terris‐Prestholt & Matthew Quaife & Peter Vickerman, 2016. "Parameterising User Uptake in Economic Evaluations: The role of discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 116-123, February.
    5. David D. Kim & Anirban Basu, 2017. "New Metrics for Economic Evaluation in the Presence of Heterogeneity: Focusing on Evaluating Policy Alternatives Rather than Treatment Alternatives," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 930-941, November.
    6. Charles E. Phelps & Alvin I. Mushlin, 1988. "Focusing Technology Assessment Using Medical Decision Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 8(4), pages 279-289, December.
    7. Fern Terris‐Prestholt & Matthew Quaife & Peter Vickerman, 2016. "Parameterising User Uptake in Economic Evaluations: The role of discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25, pages 116-123, 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. Michael S. Willis & Andreas Nilsson & Cheryl A. Neslusan, 2025. "A Review of Heterogeneity in Comparative Economic Analysis, with Specific Considerations for the Decentralized US Setting and Patient-Centered Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 601-616, June.
    2. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Reasonable patient care under uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1397-1421, October.
    3. Charles F. Manski, 2022. "Patient‐centered appraisal of race‐free clinical risk assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(10), pages 2109-2114, October.
    4. Chandoevwit, Worawan & Wasi, Nada, 2020. "Incorporating discrete choice experiments into policy decisions: Case of designing public long-term care insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    5. Charles F. Manski, 2023. "Using Limited Trial Evidence to Credibly Choose Treatment Dosage when Efficacy and Adverse Effects Weakly Increase with Dose," NBER Working Papers 31305, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Gian Luca Di Tanna & Peter Vickerman, 2018. "How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1053-1066, November.
    7. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    8. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    9. Hui Zhang & Christian Wernz & Danny R. Hughes, 2018. "Modeling and designing health care payment innovations for medical imaging," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 37-51, March.
    10. Charles F. Manski, 2020. "Towards Reasonable Patient Care Under Uncertainty," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 38(2), pages 227-245, April.
    11. Charles E. Phelps, 1997. "Good Technologies Gone Bad," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(1), pages 107-117, February.
    12. David Bardey & Philippe de Donder & Vera Zaporozhets, 2024. "The health technology assessment approach of the economic value of diagnostic tests: a literature review," Working Papers hal-04472485, HAL.
    13. Dominic Hodgkin & Joanna Volpe‐Vartanian & Elizabeth L. Merrick & Constance M. Horgan & Andrew A. Nierenberg & Richard G. Frank & Sue Lee, 2012. "Customization in prescribing for bipolar disorder," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 653-668, June.
    14. Jan Ostermann & Derek S. Brown & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Axel C. Mühlbacher & Shelby D. Reed, 2017. "Preferences for Health Interventions: Improving Uptake, Adherence, and Efficiency," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(4), pages 511-514, August.
    15. Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Hawre Jalal & Fernando Alarid-Escudero, 2025. "Microsimulation Estimates of Decision Uncertainty and Value of Information Are Biased but Consistent," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(2), pages 127-142, February.
    16. Charles F. Manski, 2016. "Credible Ecological Inference for Personalized Medicine: Formalizing Clinical Judgment," NBER Working Papers 22643, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Anna Heath & Petros Pechlivanoglou, 2022. "Prioritizing Research in an Era of Personalized Medicine: The Potential Value of Unexplained Heterogeneity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 649-660, July.
    18. Olivier Ethgen & Baudouin Standaert, 2012. "Population–versus Cohort–Based Modelling Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 171-181, March.
    19. Kwok Lung Fan & Yee Lam Elim Thompson & Weijie Chen & Craig K. Abbey & Frank W. Samuelson, 2026. "Use of Expected Utility to Evaluate Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Rule-out Devices for Mammography Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 46(3), pages 321-333, April.
    20. Grace Hui-Min Wu & Shu-Hui Chang & Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen, 2008. "A Bayesian Random-Effects Markov Model for Tumor Progression in Women with a Family History of Breast Cancer," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1231-1237, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:3:p:318-331. 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.