IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/ausm04/109.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why worry about awareness in choice problems? Econometric analysis of screening for cervical cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Rosalie Viney
  • Marion Haas
  • Rochelle Belkar
  • Denzil G. Fiebig

Abstract

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. Part of the success of this National Cervical Screening Program can be gauged by exploring the determinants of screening for cervical cancer among high-risk women and by addressing the specific question of whether screening is associated with socio-economic status. Accessibility to health services remains a core goal in health policy in Australia but evidence on whether the goal is being met is limited. 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 our modelling

Suggested Citation

  • Rosalie Viney & Marion Haas & Rochelle Belkar & Denzil G. Fiebig, 2004. "Why worry about awareness in choice problems? Econometric analysis of screening for cervical cancer," Econometric Society 2004 Australasian Meetings 109, Econometric Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecm:ausm04:109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.org/esAUSM04/up.2490.1077247599.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. John Mullahy, 1999. "It'll only hurt a second? Microeconomic determinants of who gets flu shots," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 9-24.
    5. Kenkel, Don, 1990. "Consumer Health Information and the Demand for Medical Care," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(4), pages 587-595, November.
    6. Kenkel, Donald S, 1991. "Health Behavior, Health Knowledge, and Schooling," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(2), pages 287-305, April.
    7. Andrew M. Jones, 2012. "health econometrics," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Palgrave Macmillan.
    8. Kenkel, D., 1988. "The Demand For Preventive Medical Care," Papers 3-88-4, Pennsylvania State - Department of Economics.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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 185-188, February.
    12. 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.
    13. 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..
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fiebig, Denzil G. & Haas, Marion & Hossain, Ishrat & Street, Deborah J. & Viney, Rosalie, 2009. "Decisions about Pap tests: What influences women and providers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 1766-1774, May.
    2. Nicolas Bouckaert & Erik Schokkaert, 2016. "Differing types of medical prevention appeal to different individuals," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(3), pages 317-337, April.
    3. Carman, Katherine Grace & Kooreman, Peter, 2011. "Flu Shots, Mammograms, and the Perception of Probabilities," IZA Discussion Papers 5739, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    4. Whynes, David K. & Philips, Zoe & Avis, Mark, 2007. "Why do women participate in the English cervical cancer screening programme?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 306-325, March.
    5. Katherine Carman & Ilaria Mosca, 2014. "Who Takes Up Free Flu Shots? Examining the Effects of an Expansion in Coverage," De Economist, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Meliyanni Johar & Denzil Fiebig & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2009. "Evaluating changes in women's attitudes towards cervical screening following a screening promotion campaign and a free vaccination program. CHERE Working Paper 2009/3," Working Papers 2009/3, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    7. Belkar, R. & Fiebig, D.G., 2008. "A Monte Carlo comparison of estimators for a bivariate probit model with selection," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 250-256.
    8. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    9. Carman, K.G. & Mosca, I., 2011. "Who Takes Advantage of Free Flu Shots? Examining the Effects of an Expansion in Coverage," Discussion Paper 2011-024, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    10. repec:bla:asiaec:v:31:y:2017:i:2:p:119-137 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Katherine Carman & Peter Kooreman, 2014. "Probability perceptions and preventive health care," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 43-71, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Screening choice; Awareness; Censored probit; Cervical cancer;

    JEL classification:

    • 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:ecm:ausm04:109. 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: (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.