IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aim/wpaimx/2535.html

Age In, Age Out: The (Un)intended Consequences of Targeted Screening Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Sevilla-Dedieu

    (MGEN Foundation for Public Health , Paris, France)

  • Nathalie Billaudeau

    (MGEN Foundation for Public Health , Paris, France)

  • Morgane Le Guern

    (MGEN Foundation for Public Health , Paris, France)

  • Audrey Arnaud

    (Assistance Publique – Hˆopitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France)

  • Alain Paraponaris

    (Aix-Marseille Univ., CNRS, AMSE, Marseille, France)

Abstract

Tis paper examines the efectiveness of France’s organized cancer screening programs by leveraging age-based eligibility thresholds to identify causal efects on screening uptake. Using 2019 telephone survey data matched with medico-administrative records from 1,411 women insured by MGEN, we employ a fuzzy regression discontinuity design to estimate Local Average Treatment Efects at program entry and exit ages. Our results reveal dramatic discontinuities in screening behavior: entering mammography screening eligibility at age 50 increases uptake probability by 59 percentage points (pp) (p <0.001), while exiting eligibility at age 75 decreases uptake by 39pp (p= 0.014). For cervical screening, we fnd no signifcant discontinuity at the entry age of 25, but observe a substantial decrease at the exit age of 66 (-30pp,p= 0.080). Importantly, these efects vary signifcantly according to individual risk atitudes measured using the DOSPERT scale. risk-takingwomen drive the positive entry efects for mammography screening (+74pp, p <0.001versus non-signifcant efects forrisk-aversewomen), whilerisk-aversewomen are particularly susceptible to negative exit efects (-31pp,p= 0.035). Tese fndings suggest that age-targeted screening policies create temporary behavioral changes rather than sustained health habits, with heterogeneous impacts based on individual risk preferences. Our results have important implications for designing more personalized public health interventions that account for individual psychological characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Sevilla-Dedieu & Nathalie Billaudeau & Morgane Le Guern & Audrey Arnaud & Alain Paraponaris, 2025. "Age In, Age Out: The (Un)intended Consequences of Targeted Screening Programs," AMSE Working Papers 2535, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
  • Handle: RePEc:aim:wpaimx:2535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://test.amse-aixmarseille.fr/sites/default/files/working_papers/wp_2025_nr_35.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas C. Buchmueller & Léontine Goldzahl, 2018. "The Effect of Organized Breast Cancer Screening on Mammography Use: Evidence from France," NBER Working Papers 24316, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Thomas C. Buchmueller & Léontine Goldzahl, 2018. "The effect of organized breast cancer screening on mammography use: Evidence from France," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(12), pages 1963-1980, December.
    3. Gabriel Picone & Frank Sloan & Donald Taylor, 2004. "Effects of Risk and Time Preference and Expected Longevity on Demand for Medical Tests," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 39-53, January.
    4. Christine Le Clainche & Antoine Marsaudon & Lise Rochaix & Baptiste Haon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2024. "Do Behavioral Characteristics Influence the Breast Cancer Diagnosis Delay? Evidence From French Retrospective Data," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-04814441, HAL.
    5. Goldzahl, Léontine & Hollard, Guillaume & Jusot, Florence, 2018. "Increasing breast-cancer screening uptake: A randomized controlled experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 228-252.
    6. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    7. Glen B. Taksler & Adam T. Perzynski & Michael W. Kattan, 2017. "Modeling Individual Patient Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Their Tolerance for Complications Risk," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 204-215, April.
    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. Mary Riddel & David Hales, 2018. "Predicting Cancer‐Prevention Behavior: Disentangling the Effects of Risk Aversion and Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2161-2177, October.
    10. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Tamar Oostrom & Abigail Ostriker & Heidi Williams, 2020. "Screening and Selection: The Case of Mammograms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(12), pages 3836-3870, December.
    11. Bowman, Jennifer Ann & Sanson-Fisher, Rob & Redman, Sally, 1997. "The accuracy of self-reported Pap smear utilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 969-976, April.
    12. Coughlin, Steven S. & Leadbetter, Steven & Richards, Thomas & Sabatino, Susan A., 2008. "Contextual analysis of breast and cervical cancer screening and factors associated with health care access among United States women, 2002," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 260-275, January.
    13. Clara Dugord & Carine Franc, 2022. "Trajectories and individual determinants of regular cancer screening use over a long period based on data from the French E3N cohort," Post-Print hal-04385507, HAL.
    14. Anne-Kim Ristori, 2023. "Connaissance du contrat complémentaire santé et écart assurantiel," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 74(3), pages 399-439.
    15. Wu, Stephen, 2003. "Sickness and preventive medical behavior," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 675-689, July.
    16. Blais, Ann-Renée & Weber, Elke U., 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 33-47, July.
    17. Jolidon, Vladimir, 2022. "Gender inequality and mammography screening: Does living with a partner improve women's mammography uptake?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    18. Ted O'Donoghue & Jason Somerville, 2018. "Modeling Risk Aversion in Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(2), pages 91-114, Spring.
    19. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 33-47, July.
    20. Ravi Bapna & Chrysanthos Dellarocas & Sarah Rice, 2010. "Vertically Differentiated Simultaneous Vickrey Auctions: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(7), pages 1074-1092, July.
    21. Dugord, Clara & Franc, Carine, 2022. "Trajectories and individual determinants of regular cancer screening use over a long period based on data from the French E3N cohort," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    22. Quintal, Carlota & Antunes, Micaela, 2022. "Mirror, mirror on the wall, when are inequalities higher, after all? Analysis of breast and cervical cancer screening in 30 European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).
    23. Willems, Barbara & Bracke, Piet, 2018. "Participants, Physicians or Programmes: Participants’ educational level and initiative in cancer screening," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(4), pages 422-430.
    24. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    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. Eibich, Peter & Goldzahl, Léontine, 2021. "Does retirement affect secondary preventive care use? Evidence from breast cancer screening," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    2. Philippe Sterkens & Axana Dalle & Joey Wuyts & Ines Pauwels & Hellen Durinck & Stijn Baert, 2025. "Sexual orientation stereotypes and job candidate screening: why gay is (mostly) OK," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 38(1), pages 1-40, March.
    3. Dugord, Clara & Franc, Carine, 2025. "Intergenerational transmission of preventive health-seeking behaviors: Like mother, like daughter? The case of cancer screening in France," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 381(C).
    4. Herberholz, Chantal, 2020. "Risk attitude, time preference and health behaviours in the Bangkok Metropolitan Area," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    5. Anne-Marie Konopka & Thomas Barnay & Nathalie Billaudeau & Christine Sevilla-Dedieu, 2019. "Les déterminants du recours au dépistage du cancer du col de l’utérus : une analyse départementale," Erudite Working Paper 2019-19, Erudite.
    6. Crystal Reeck & O’Dhaniel A Mullette-Gillman & R Edward McLaurin & Scott A Huettel, 2022. "Beyond money: Risk preferences across both economic and non-economic contexts predict financial decisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Ren, Han & Sun, Shiwei & Zhong, Zhengqiang & Wang, Song, 2025. "Why do females display lower financial risk propensity than males? Evidence from structural MRI and resting-state fMRI," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    8. Dalle, Axana & Verhofstadt, Elsy & Baert, Stijn, 2024. "The subsidy trap: Explaining the unsatisfactory effectiveness of hiring subsidies for the senior unemployed," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    9. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    10. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini & van der Pol, Marjon, 2016. "Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
    11. Guthmuller, Sophie & Carrieri, Vincenzo & Wübker, Ansgar, 2023. "Effects of organized screening programs on breast cancer screening, incidence, and mortality in Europe," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    12. Samek, Anya & Gray, Andre & Datar, Ashlesha & Nicosia, Nancy, 2021. "Adolescent time and risk preferences: Measurement, determinants and field consequences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 460-488.
    13. Wang, Ziyi & Wei, Lijia & Xue, Lian, 2025. "Overcoming medical overuse with AI assistance: An experimental investigation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    14. Guo, Yiting & Wei, Lijia & Xue, Lian, 2024. "Intergenerational preference transmission in physician families during the pandemic: Theory and evidence," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    15. Marius Protte & Behnud Mir Djawadi, 2025. "Human vs. Algorithmic Auditors: The Impact of Entity Type and Ambiguity on Human Dishonesty," Papers 2507.15439, arXiv.org.
    16. Wang-Cheng Cen & Cheng-Han Li & Yu-Hao Cui & Wen-Jing Yan, 2025. "Psychological pathways of violent and non-violent criminals: an exploration combining network analysis and Bayesian modeling," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Bayer, Ya'akov M. & Shapir, Offer Moshe & Shapir-Tidhar, Michal H. & Shtudiner, Zeev, 2024. "Navigating the financial fog: The impact of pandemic priming on economic decisions and future valuations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    18. Eva M. Krockow & Masanori Takezawa & Briony D. Pulford & Andrew M. Colman & Samuel Smithers & Toshimasa Kita & Yo Nakawake, 2018. "Commitment-enhancing tools in Centipede games: Evidencing European–Japanese differences in trust and cooperation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 61-72, January.
    19. Rizzolli, Matteo & Tremewan, James, 2018. "Hard labor in the lab: Deterrence, non-monetary sanctions, and severe procedures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 107-121.
    20. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C26 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Instrumental Variables (IV) Estimation
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I14 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Inequality
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aim:wpaimx:2535. 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: Gregory Cornu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/amseafr.html .

    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.