IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp12193.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Promoting Breast Cancer Screening Take-Ups with Zero Cost: Evidence from an Experiment on Formatting Invitation Letters in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Bertoni, Marco

    (University of Padova)

  • Corazzini, Luca

    (Ca' Foscari University of Venice)

  • Robone, Silvana

    (University of Insubria)

Abstract

We ran a randomized field experiment to ascertain whether a costless manipulation of the informational content (restricted or enhanced information) and the framing (gain or loss framing) of the invitation letter to the breast cancer screening program in Messina, Italy, affects the take-up rate. We show that giving enhanced loss-framed information about the risks of not having a mammography increases the take-up. This manipulation is especially effective among subjects with lower baseline take-ups – those living farther away from the screening site, residing in municipalities with low education, or with no recent screening experience – contributing to reduce socio-economic inequalities in screening. When we investigate the mechanisms behind our findings, we show that subjects exposed to our proposed manipulation are also less likely to postpone the appointment, signaling enhanced awareness about the risks related with delayed participation.

Suggested Citation

  • Bertoni, Marco & Corazzini, Luca & Robone, Silvana, 2019. "Promoting Breast Cancer Screening Take-Ups with Zero Cost: Evidence from an Experiment on Formatting Invitation Letters in Italy," IZA Discussion Papers 12193, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp12193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp12193.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Vincenzo Carrieri & Ansgar Wuebker, 2016. "Quasi-Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Health Information on Preventive Behaviour in Europe," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 78(6), pages 765-791, December.
    3. D’Amuri, Francesco & Marcucci, Juri, 2017. "The predictive power of Google searches in forecasting US unemployment," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 801-816.
    4. David M. Cutler, 2008. "Are We Finally Winning the War on Cancer?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    5. Egebark, Johan & Ekström, Mathias, 2016. "Can indifference make the world greener?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-13.
    6. James Andreoni, 1995. "Warm-Glow versus Cold-Prickle: The Effects of Positive and Negative Framing on Cooperation in Experiments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 1-21.
    7. Jessica Wisdom & Julie S. Downs & George Loewenstein, 2010. "Promoting Healthy Choices: Information versus Convenience," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 164-178, April.
    8. Ehlert, Martin & Finger, Claudia & Rusconi, Alessandra & Solga, Heike, 2017. "Applying to college: Do information deficits lower the likelihood of college-eligible students from less-privileged families to pursue their college intentions?: Evidence from a field experiment," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 67, pages 193-212.
    9. Marianne Bertrand & Adair Morse, 2011. "Information Disclosure, Cognitive Biases, and Payday Borrowing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(6), pages 1865-1893, December.
    10. Altmann, Steffen & Traxler, Christian, 2014. "Nudges at the dentist," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 19-38.
    11. Richard G. Newell & Juha Siikamäki, 2014. "Nudging Energy Efficiency Behavior: The Role of Information Labels," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 555-598.
    12. Hanming Fang & Yang Wang, 2015. "Estimating Dynamic Discrete Choice Models With Hyperbolic Discounting, With An Application To Mammography Decisions," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56, pages 565-596, May.
    13. John A. List & Azeem M. Shaikh & Yang Xu, 2019. "Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental economics," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 773-793, December.
    14. Martin McGuigan & Sandra McNally & Gill Wyness, 2016. "Student Awareness of Costs and Benefits of Educational Decisions: Effects of an Information Campaign," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(4), pages 482-519.
    15. Andrew S. Hanks & David R. Just & Brian Wansink, "undated". "Healthy Convenience: Nudging Students Toward Healthier Choices in Lunchroom," Working Papers 2012-03, Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs.
    16. Viola Angelini & Marco Bertoni & Luca Corazzini, 2017. "Unpacking the determinants of life satisfaction: a survey experiment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(1), pages 225-246, January.
    17. Levin, Irwin P & Gaeth, Gary J, 1988. "How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 374-378, December.
    18. Justine S. Hastings & Jeffrey M. Weinstein, 2008. "Information, School Choice, and Academic Achievement: Evidence from Two Experiments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(4), pages 1373-1414.
    19. Rachel Croson & Jen Shang, 2008. "The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 221-233, September.
    20. Rege, Mari & Telle, Kjetil, 2004. "The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(7-8), pages 1625-1644, July.
    21. Cass Sunstein, 2014. "Nudging: A Very Short Guide," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 583-588, December.
    22. Andrew S. Hanks & David R. Just & Brian Wansink, 2012. "Healthy Convenience: Nudging Students Toward Healthier Choices in Lunchroom," Working Papers 03, Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs.
    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. Adi Berliner Senderey & Tamar Kornitzer & Gabriella Lawrence & Hilla Zysman & Yael Hallak & Dan Ariely & Ran Balicer, 2020. "It’s how you say it: Systematic A/B testing of digital messaging cut hospital no-show rates," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-13, June.

    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. Bertoni, M.; Corazzini, L.; Robone, S.;, 2017. "The Good Outcomes of Bad News. A Randomized Field Experiment on Formatting Breast Cancer Screening Invitations," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 17/27, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    2. Antinyan, Armenak & Horváth, Gergely & Jia, Mofei, 2020. "Curbing the consumption of positional goods: Behavioral interventions versus taxation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1-21.
    3. Benito-Ostolaza, Juan Miguel & Echavarri, Rebeca & Garcia-Prado, Ariadna & Oses-Eraso, Nuria, 2021. "Using visual stimuli to promote healthy snack choices among children," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    4. Löfgren, Åsa & Nordblom, Katarina, 2020. "A theoretical framework of decision making explaining the mechanisms of nudging," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Sander Onderstal & Arthur J.C. Schram & Adriaan R. Soetevent, 2011. "Bidding to give in the Field: Door-to-Door Fundraisers had it right from the Start," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-070/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 10 Nov 2011.
    6. Kesternich, Martin & Römer, Daniel & Flues, Florens, 2019. "The power of active choice: Field experimental evidence on repeated contribution decisions to a carbon offsetting program," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 76-91.
    7. Á. Ní Choisdealbha & P. D. Lunn, 2020. "Green and Simple: Disclosures on Eco-labels Interact with Situational Constraints in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 699-722, December.
    8. Ozturk, Orgul D. & Frongillo, Edward A. & Blake, Christine E. & McInnes, Melayne M. & Turner-McGrievy, Gabrielle, 2020. "Before the lunch line: Effectiveness of behavioral economic interventions for pre-commitment on elementary school children's food choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 597-618.
    9. Antinyan, Armenak & Corazzini, Luca, 2023. "Breaking the Bag Habit: Testing Interventions to Reduce Plastic Bag Demand in a Developing Country," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2023/7, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    10. Onderstal, Sander & Schram, Arthur J.H.C. & Soetevent, Adriaan R., 2014. "Reprint of: Bidding to give in the field," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 87-100.
    11. Itzik Fadlon & Torben Heien Nielsen, 2019. "Family Health Behaviors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(9), pages 3162-3191, September.
    12. Lucas W. Davis & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2016. "Does Better Information Lead to Better Choices? Evidence from Energy-Efficiency Labels," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(3), pages 589-625.
    13. Boun My, Kene & Ouvrard, Benjamin, 2019. "Nudge and tax in an environmental public goods experiment: Does environmental sensitivity matter?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 24-48.
    14. Onderstal, Sander & Schram, Arthur J.H.C. & Soetevent, Adriaan R., 2013. "Bidding to give in the field," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 72-85.
    15. Fabrice Etilé, 2019. "The Economics of Diet and Obesity: Public Policy," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-02154445, HAL.
    16. Boogen, Nina & Daminato, Claudio & Filippini, Massimo & Obrist, Adrian, 2022. "Can information about energy costs affect consumers’ choices? Evidence from a field experiment☆," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 568-588.
    17. Belot, Michèle & James, Jonathan, 2014. "A new perspective on the issue of selection bias in randomized controlled field experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(3), pages 326-328.
    18. Ariun Ishdorj & Mary Kay Crepinsek & Helen H. Jensen, 2013. "Children's Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables: Do School Environment and Policies Affect Choices at School and Away from School?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 341-359.
    19. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.
    20. de Melo, Gioia & Piaggio, Matías, 2015. "The perils of peer punishment: Evidence from a common pool resource framed field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 376-393.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    information provision; framing; breast cancer screening; randomized field experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • H51 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Health
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • 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:iza:izadps:dp12193. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.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.