IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ijhplm/v34y2019i1pe34-e45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A choice experiment to identify the most important elements of a successful cancer screening program according to those who research and manage such programs

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Priaulx
  • Marcell Csanádi
  • Harry J. de Koning
  • Martin McKee

Abstract

Purpose The relationship between cancer screening activities in Europe and the health systems in which they are embedded varies, with some screening programs organized largely separately and others using existing health service staff and facilities. Whatever the precise arrangements, the opportunity for screening to achieve health gain depends on many elements interacting within and beyond the health system, from an accurate register identifying the target population to a means to ensure and monitor follow‐up. Method A conjoint analysis was undertaken with 66 cancer screening experts from 31 countries taking part in EU‐TOPIA (towards improved screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer in all of Europe) to identify priorities for an effective screening program, taking a whole system perspective. Ten attributes, each with two levels, were derived from a review of the literature and consultation with experts in cancer screening. Statistical software generated 12 profiles that were ranked by respondents and analyzed using standard conjoint analysis. Findings and conclusion The most important attributes were having up‐to‐date and evidence‐based guidelines, followed by mechanisms for systematic monitoring of screening uptake, having a population register covering all of the eligible population and monitoring long‐term outcomes. In discussions about the results, participants argued that quality assurance and adherence to guidelines were important, even though they generated low scores in the experiment. This difference may be due some attributes being interrelated, more wide‐ranging or the sequential nature of establishing an effective screening program, with guidelines being the first stage of the process.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Priaulx & Marcell Csanádi & Harry J. de Koning & Martin McKee, 2019. "A choice experiment to identify the most important elements of a successful cancer screening program according to those who research and manage such programs," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 34-45, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:34:y:2019:i:1:p:e34-e45
    DOI: 10.1002/hpm.2697
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2697
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hpm.2697?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    2. Priaulx, Jennifer & de Koning, Harry J. & de Kok, Inge M.C.M. & Széles, György & McKee, Martin, 2018. "Identifying the barriers to effective breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in thirty one European countries using the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST)," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(11), pages 1190-1197.
    3. Turnbull, Eleanor & Priaulx, Jennifer & van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T. & Heinävaara, Sirpa & Siljander, Ilona & Senore, Carlo & Segnan, Nereo & Vokó, Zoltán & Hagymásy, Judit & Jarm, Katja & Veerus, Piret, 2018. "A health systems approach to identifying barriers to breast cancer screening programmes. Methodology and application in six European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(11), pages 1198-1205.
    4. Turnbull, Eleanor & Priaulx, Jennifer & de Kok, Inge M.C.M. & Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris & Anttila, Ahti & Sarkeala, Tytti & Senore, Carlo & Segnan, Nereo & Csanádi, Marcell & Pitter, János & Novak Mlaka, 2018. "Results of a health systems approach to identify barriers to population-based cervical and colorectal cancer screening programmes in six European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(11), pages 1206-1211.
    5. Hall, Jane & Viney, Rosalie & Haas, Marion & Louviere, Jordan, 2004. "Using stated preference discrete choice modeling to evaluate health care programs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1026-1032, September.
    6. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    7. Farrar, Shelley & Ryan, Mandy & Ross, Donald & Ludbrook, Anne, 2000. "Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 63-75, January.
    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. 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.
    2. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    3. Philips, Hilde & Mahr, Dominik & Remmen, Roy & Weverbergh, Marcel & De Graeve, Diana & Van Royen, Paul, 2012. "Predicting the place of out-of-hours care—A market simulation based on discrete choice analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(3), pages 284-290.
    4. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    5. Burns, J.G. & Glenk, K. & Eory, V. & Simm, G. & Wall, E., 2021. "Preferences of European dairy stakeholders in breeding for resilient and efficient cattle: a Best-Worst Scaling approach," 95th Annual Conference, March 29-30, 2021, Warwick, UK (Hybrid) 311092, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    6. Yosr Abid Fourati & Cathal O'Donoghue, 2009. "Eliciting Individual Preferences for Pension Reform," Working Papers 0150, National University of Ireland Galway, Department of Economics, revised 2009.
    7. Keane, Michael, 2004. "Modeling Health Insurance Choices in “Competitive” Markets," MPRA Paper 55198, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    9. Huarng, Kun-Huang & Yu, Tiffany Hui-Kuang, 2015. "Healthcare expenditure with causal recipes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1570-1573.
    10. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    11. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    12. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    13. Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    14. Nganje, William E. & Hearne, Robert R. & Orth, Michael & Gustafson, Cole R., 2004. "Using Choice Experiments To Elicit Farmers Preferences? For Crop And Health Insurance," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20357, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Söderberg, Magnus, 2008. "A choice modelling analysis on the similarity between distribution utilities' and industrial customers' price and quality preferences," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 1246-1262, May.
    16. William Nganje & Robert Hearne & Cole Gustafson & Michael Orth, 2008. "Farmers' Preferences for Alternative Crop and Health Insurance Subsidy," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 333-351.
    17. James Laurenceson & Paul F. Burke & Edward Wei, 2015. "The Australian Public's Preferences Over Foreign Investment in Agriculture," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 22(1), pages 45-62.
    18. Kei Long Cheung & Ben F. M. Wijnen & Ilene L. Hollin & Ellen M. Janssen & John F. Bridges & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Mickael Hiligsmann, 2016. "Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(12), pages 1195-1209, December.
    19. Rebekah Hall & Antonieta Medina-Lara & Willie Hamilton & Anne E. Spencer, 2022. "Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(3), pages 269-285, May.
    20. Evelyne Gbénou-Sissinto & Ygué P. Adegbola & Gauthier Biaou & Roch C. Zossou, 2018. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for New Storage Technologies for Maize in Northern and Central Benin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.

    More about this item

    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:bla:ijhplm:v:34:y:2019:i:1:p:e34-e45. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0749-6753 .

    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.