Why worry about awareness in choice problems? Econometric analysis of screening for cervical cancer
The decision to undertake a screening test is conditional upon awareness of screening. From an econometric perspective there is a potential selection problem, if no distinction is made between aware and unaware non-screeners. This paper explores this problem through analysis of the determinants of cervical screening in Australia. Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable and curable forms of cancer. Since 1991 there has been a concerted effort in Australia to recommend and encourage women to have Pap smears every two years. The success of this program can be partly gauged by exploring the determinants of screening for cervical cancer. Using unit record data from the 1995 National Health Survey, an econometric model is developed for whether women have ever screened or not. A proportion of women in the sample contend that they have never heard of a Pap test. The analysis characterizes this group of women and accounts for their presence in the modelling. The paper demonstrates failing to model awareness can result in inconsistent parameter estimates even when the degree of censoring in the sample is relatively small. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Volume (Year): 15 (2006)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749|
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.:
- van Soest, A.H.O. & Kooreman, P. & Kapteyn, A.J., 1990.
"Coherency and regularity of demand systems with equality and inequality constraints,"
1990-1, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Soest, Arthur van & Kapteyn, Arie & Kooreman, Peter, 1993. "Coherency and regularity of demand systems with equality and inequality constraints," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1-3), pages 161-188.
- Ehrlich, Isaac & Becker, Gary S, 1972. "Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(4), pages 623-648, July-Aug..
- Jones, Andrew M., 2000.
Handbook of Health Economics,
in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 265-344
- 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.
- John Mullahy, 1999.
"It'll only hurt a second? Microeconomic determinants of who gets flu shots,"
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 9-24.
- John Mullahy, 1998. "It'll Only Hurt a Second? Microeconomic Determinants of Who Gets Flu Shots," NBER Working Papers 6500, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Leung, S.F. & Yu, S., 1992.
"On the Choice Between Sample Selection and Two-Part Models,"
RCER Working Papers
337, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Leung, Siu Fai & Yu, Shihti, 1996. "On the choice between sample selection and two-part models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1-2), pages 197-229.
- Kenkel, D.S., 1988.
"Health Behavior, Health Knowledge, And Schooling,"
10-88-3, Pennsylvania State - Department of Economics.
- Hsiao, Cheng & Sun, Bao-Hong, 1998. "Modeling survey response bias - with an analysis of the demand for an advanced electronic device," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 15-39, November.
- Kenkel, D., 1988. "The Demand For Preventive Medical Care," Papers 3-88-4, Pennsylvania State - Department of Economics.
- Hausman, J. A. & Abrevaya, Jason & Scott-Morton, F. M., 1998. "Misclassification of the dependent variable in a discrete-response setting," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 239-269, September.
- Kenkel, Don, 1990. "Consumer Health Information and the Demand for Medical Care," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(4), pages 587-95, November.
- Kazumitsu Nawata & Michael McAleer, 2001. "Size Characteristics Of Tests For Sample Selection Bias: A Monte Carlo Comparison And Empirical Example," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 105-112.
- Meng, Chun-Lo & Schmidt, Peter, 1985. "On the Cost of Partial Observability in the Bivariate Probit Model," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 26(1), pages 71-85, February.
- Zuehlke, Thomas W & Zeman, Allen R, 1991. "A Comparison of Two-Stage Estimators of Censored Regression Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(1), pages 185-88, February.
- Nelson, Forrest D., 1984. "Efficiency of the two-step estimator for models with endogenous sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 181-196.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:33-47. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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.