IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v5y2015i1p1-1710.1186-s13561-015-0065-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Breast and cervical cancer screening in Great Britain: Dynamic interrelated processes

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Labeit
  • Frank Peinemann

Abstract

No previous analysis has investigated the determinants of screening uptake for breast and cervical cancer screening for possible spillover effects from one type of screening examination to the other type of screening examination with a dynamic bivariate panel probit model. For our analysis, we used a dynamic random effects bivariate panel probit model with initial conditions (Wooldridge-type estimator) and dependent variables were the participation of breast and cervical cancer screening in the recent year. The balanced panel sample consisted of 844 women from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) from the time period 1992 to 2008. Our analysis showed the high relevance of past screening behaviour and the importance of state dependency for the same and the other type of cancer screening examinations even after controlling for covariates and unobserved heterogeneity. The uptake for breast and cervical cancer screening was higher when the same screening examination was done one or three years earlier. This result is in accordance with the medical screening programmes in Great Britain. With regard to breast and cervical cancer screening positive spillover effects existed between screening examinations in the third order lags. Women with a previous visit to a general practitioner and individuals in the recommended age groups had a higher uptake for breast and cervical cancer screening. Other socioeconomic and health related variables had non-uniform results in both screening examinations. Promoting the uptake of one female prevention activity could also enhance the uptake of the other prevention activity. Copyright Labeit and Peinemann. 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Labeit & Frank Peinemann, 2015. "Breast and cervical cancer screening in Great Britain: Dynamic interrelated processes," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:5:y:2015:i:1:p:1-17:10.1186/s13561-015-0065-3
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-015-0065-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1186/s13561-015-0065-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-015-0065-3?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rob Alessie & Stefan Hochguertel & Arthur van Soest, 2004. "Ownership of Stocks and Mutual Funds: A Panel Data Analysis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(3), pages 783-796, August.
    2. Carney, Patricia & O'Neill, Stephen & O'Neill, Ciaran, 2013. "Determinants of breast cancer screening uptake in women, evidence from the British Household Panel Survey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 108-114.
    3. Vincenzo Carrieri & Marcel Bilger, 2013. "Preventive care: underused even when free. Is there something else at work?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 239-253, January.
    4. Selden, Thomas M., 1993. "Uncertainty and health care spending by the poor: The health capital model revisited," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 109-115, April.
    5. Viscusi, W Kip, 1990. "Do Smokers Underestimate Risks?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1253-1269, December.
    6. Cristina Hernandez-Quevedo & Andrew M Jones & Nigel Rice, "undated". "Reporting Bias and Heterogeneity in Self-Assessed Health. Evidence from the British Household Panel Survey," Discussion Papers 04/18, Department of Economics, University of York.
    7. Grossman, Michael, 1972. "On the Concept of Health Capital and the Demand for Health," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(2), pages 223-255, March-Apr.
    8. Lairson, David R. & Chan, Wenyaw & Newmark, Georgina R., 2005. "Determinants of the demand for breast cancer screening among women veterans in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1608-1617, October.
    9. Sabates, Ricardo & Feinstein, Leon, 2006. "The role of education in the uptake of preventative health care: The case of cervical screening in Britain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(12), pages 2998-3010, June.
    10. P. Jenkins, Stephen, 2010. "The British Household Panel Survey and its income data," ISER Working Paper Series 2010-33, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    11. A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), 2000. "Handbook of Health Economics," Handbook of Health Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    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. Alexander Michael Labeit & Frank Peinemann, 2017. "Determinants of a GP visit and cervical cancer screening examination in Great Britain," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Ansgar Wübker, 2014. "Explaining variations in breast cancer screening across European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(5), pages 497-514, June.
    3. Carrieri, Vincenzo & Wuebker, Ansgar, 2013. "Assessing inequalities in preventive care use in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 247-257.
    4. repec:zbw:rwirep:0370 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:zbw:rwirep:0371 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Vincenzo Carrieri & Ansgar Wübker, 2012. "Assessing Inequalities in Preventive Care Use in Europe," Ruhr Economic Papers 0371, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    7. Ansgar Wübker, 2012. "Explaining Variations in Breast Cancer Screening Across European Countries," Ruhr Economic Papers 0370, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    8. David Cantarero & Marta Pascual, 2005. "Regional Differences In Health In Spain - An Empirical Analysis," ERSA conference papers ersa05p551, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Hernández-Quevedo, Cristina & Jones, Andrew M. & Rice, Nigel, 2008. "Persistence in health limitations: A European comparative analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 1472-1488, December.
    10. Bolin, Kristian & Caputo, Michael R., 2020. "Consumption and investment demand when health evolves stochastically," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    11. Udo Schneider & Jürgen Zerth, 2011. "Improving Prevention Compliance through Appropriate Incentives: Theoretical Modelling and Empirical Evidence," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 147(I), pages 71-106, March.
    12. Burggraf, Christine, 2017. "Russian demand for dietary quality: Nutrition transition, diet quality measurement, and health investment theory," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies 269539, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    13. repec:zbw:iamost:269539 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Bolin, Kristian & Jacobson, Lena & Lindgren, Bjorn, 2002. "Employer investments in employee health: Implications for the family as health producer," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 563-583, July.
    15. Vogt, Verena & Siegel, Martin & Sundmacher, Leonie, 2014. "Examining regional variation in the use of cancer screening in Germany," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 74-80.
    16. Grimard, Franque & Parent, Daniel, 2007. "Education and smoking: Were Vietnam war draft avoiders also more likely to avoid smoking?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 896-926, September.
    17. Carrieri, V. & Wuebker, A., 2012. "Assessing inequalities in preventive care use in Europe: A special case of health-care inequalities?," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 12/25, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    18. Luke Connelly, 2004. "Economics and health promotion," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(3), pages 236-242, September.
    19. Burggraf, Christine, 2017. "Russian demand for dietary quality: Nutrition transition, diet quality measurement, and health investment theory," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 86, number 86.
    20. Eric French & Elaine Kelly & Richard Cookson & Carol Propper & Miqdad Asaria & Rosalind Raine, 2016. "Socio‐Economic Inequalities in Health Care in England," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 37, pages 371-403, September.
    21. Majo, Maria Cristina & van Soest, Arthur, 2012. "Income and health care utilization among the 50+ in Europe and the US," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 28(4), pages 3-22.
    22. Anikó Bíró, 2014. "Supplementary private health insurance and health care utilization of people aged 50+," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 501-524, March.
    23. Carl Lyttkens, 2009. "Why the econometrician is in good spirits: a workshop through the looking glass," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(3), pages 239-242, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dynamic panel probit model; Bivariate probit; Preventive medicine; State dependence; Screening; Health check-ups; C33; C51; I19;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C51 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Construction and Estimation
    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    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:spr:hecrev:v:5:y:2015:i:1:p:1-17:10.1186/s13561-015-0065-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.