Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes

Abstract

Economic evaluations generally fail to incorporate elements of intangible costs and benefits, such as anxiety and discomfort associated with the screening test and diagnostic test, as well as the magnitude of utility associated with a reduction in the risk of dying from cancer. In the present analysis, 750 respondents were interviewed and asked to rank, according to priority, a number of alternative screening programme set-ups. Focus was on colorectal cancer screening and breast cancer screening. The alternative programmes varied with respect to number of tests performed, risk reduction obtained, probability of a false positive outcome and extent of co-payment. Stated preferences were analysed using discrete ranking modelling and the relative weighting of the programme attributes identified. Applying discrete choice methods to elicit preferences within this area of health care seems justified by the face validity of the results. The signs of the coefficients are in accordance with a priori hypotheses. This paper suggests that large-scale surveys focusing on individuals' preferences for cancer screening programmes may contribute significantly to the quality of economic evaluations within this field of health care.

The reasons of general practitioners for promoting colorectal cancer mass screening in France

“…Their val ue is that they make it pos si ble to es ti mate the utili ty de rived from a com mod i ty by as sessing the con tri bu tion of each com po nent (also called "at tribute") of the com modi ty. These tech niques have re cent ly also been ap plied to as sess ing pa tients' pref erences for var i ous health pro grams [10,11,12]. The pre dic tive ca pac i ty of these models in the con text of health choic es has there fore been dem on stra ted.…”

Public Perceptions of the Benefits and Risks of Newborn Screening

“…1,9,54,56 These findings also add to a broader literature on attitudes toward population screening by exploring several complex harms. [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66] Specifically, that 100% of our respondents showed a statistically significant preference to avoid harms (FPs, overdiagnosis) is important, because misunderstanding of risk-based harms is common, 67 and recent work exploring attitudes toward overdiagnosis in the context of breast cancer screening has shown considerable confusion as well as limited valuation. [68][69][70][71] Furthermore, the identification of both positive and negative preferences for early diagnosis reinforces qualitative research that suggests the complexity of beliefs about early knowledge of disease in an infant, including concern about the risk of unwanted knowledge and negative consequences for the parent-child bond.…”

Factors Affecting Breast Cancer Screening Behavior in Japan - Assessment using the Health Belief Model and Conjoint Analysis

“…In recent years in Europe and the United States, conjoint analysis, one of the stated preference techniques, is used for quantitative assessment of preferences for conditions allowing or promoting participation in cancer screening (Gyrd-Hansen and Sogaard, 2001;Marshall et al, 2007;Hawley et al, 2008;Hol et al, 2010;Ghanouni et al, 2013). In the past, it has been pointed out that the factors receiving emphasis are difficult to identify by reciprocal comparisons of multiple factors.…”