IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: A pilot study of breast screening participation

  • Karen Gerard
  • Marian Shanahan
  • Jordan Louviere
Registered author(s):

    This study was an important start to explore the feasibility of applying stated preference discrete choice modelling (SPDCM) for use in developing breast screening participation enhancement strategies. It needs to be followed by further research to establish model validity and authoritative results. In the meantime a random effects binary probit choice model was estimated using a main effects with selected 2-way interaction design and a convenience sample of Australian breast cancer screening participants. A response rate of 48% was obtained. Clear preferences for different service configurations were revealed and used to demonstrate how potential strategies to enhance future participation rates of women placed on routine recall could be identified. As anticipated accuracy of screening was the most important attribute of the service to influence the probability of uptake but others were screening time, travel time, information about screening benefits and the desire for privacy lending support to the view that benefit assessment goes beyond health factors. In summary, the SPDCM approach can be regarded as a judicious approach for helping decision-makers improve screening participation.

    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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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.

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics.

    Volume (Year): 35 (2003)
    Issue (Month): 9 ()
    Pages: 1073-1085

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:35:y:2003:i:9:p:1073-1085
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    3. Rosalie Viney & Richard De Abreu Lourenco & Dianne Kitcher & Karen Gerard, 2000. "NSW breast and cervical screening program review, CHERE Project Report No 14," Research Reports 14, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    4. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    5. Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Jes S�gaard, 2001. "Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 617-634.
    6. Ryan, Mandy, 1999. "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 535-546, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:35:y:2003:i:9:p:1073-1085. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.