IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v167y2016icp116-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What are GPs' preferences for financial and non-financial incentives in cancer screening? Evidence for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers

Author

Listed:
  • Sicsic, Jonathan
  • Krucien, Nicolas
  • Franc, Carine

Abstract

General practitioners (GPs) play a key role in the delivery of preventive and screening services for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. In practice, GPs' involvement varies considerably across types of cancer and among GPs, raising important questions about the determinants of GPs' implication in screening activities: what is the relative impact of financial and non-financial incentives? Are GPs' preferences for financial and non-financial incentives cancer-specific? Is there preference heterogeneity and how much does it differ according to the screening context? This study investigates the determinants of GPs' involvement in cancer screening activities using the discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology. A representative sample of 402 GPs' was recruited in France between March and April 2014. Marginal rates of substitution were used to compare GPs' preferences for being involved in screening activities across three types of cancers: breast, cervical, and colorectal. Variability of preferences was investigated using Hierarchical Bayes mixed logit models. The results indicate that GPs are sensitive to both financial and non-financial incentives, such as a compensated training and systematic transmission of information about screened patients, aimed to facilitate communication between doctors and patients. There is also evidence that the level and variability of preferences differ across screening contexts, although the variations are not statistically significant on average. GPs appear to be relatively more sensitive to financial incentives for being involved in colorectal cancer screening, whereas they have higher and more heterogeneous preferences for non-financial incentives in breast and cervical cancers. Our study provides new findings for policymakers interested in prioritizing levers to increase the supply of cancer screening services in general practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Sicsic, Jonathan & Krucien, Nicolas & Franc, Carine, 2016. "What are GPs' preferences for financial and non-financial incentives in cancer screening? Evidence for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 116-127.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:167:y:2016:i:c:p:116-127
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616304865
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.050?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Selten, Reinhard & Wiesen, Daniel, 2011. "How payment systems affect physicians' provision behaviour--An experimental investigation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 637-646, July.
    2. Vincenzo Carrieri & Marcel Bilger, 2013. "Preventive care: underused even when free. Is there something else at work?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 239-253, January.
    3. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    4. Jonathan Sicsic & Carine Franc, 2017. "Impact assessment of a pay-for-performance program on breast cancer screening in France using micro data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(5), pages 609-621, June.
    5. Regier, Dean A. & Ryan, Mandy & Phimister, Euan & Marra, Carlo A., 2009. "Bayesian and classical estimation of mixed logit: An application to genetic testing," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 598-610, May.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    7. Philip Heidelberger & Peter D. Welch, 1983. "Simulation Run Length Control in the Presence of an Initial Transient," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 1109-1144, December.
    8. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    9. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    10. Richard M. Hoffman & Carmen L. Lewis & Michael P. Pignone & Mick P. Couper & Michael J. Barry & Joann G. Elmore & Carrie A. Levin & John Van Hoewyk & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Decision-Making Processes for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screening: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 53-64, September.
    11. Carine Franc & Romain Lesur, 2004. "Systèmes de rémunération des médecins et incitations à la prévention," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 55(5), pages 901-922.
    12. Daziano, Ricardo A. & Achtnicht, Martin, 2014. "Accounting for uncertainty in willingness to pay for environmental benefits," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 166-177.
    13. Sicsic, Jonathan & Le Vaillant, Marc & Franc, Carine, 2012. "Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in primary care: An explanatory study among French general practitioners," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 140-148.
    14. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    15. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    17. repec:dau:papers:123456789/14768 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Scott, Anthony, 2001. "Eliciting GPs' preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 329-347, May.
    19. Holte, Jon Helgheim & Kjaer, Trine & Abelsen, Birgit & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2015. "The impact of pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives for attracting young doctors to rural general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    20. Jinhu Li & Jeremiah Hurley & Philip DeCicca & Gioia Buckley, 2014. "Physician Response To Pay‐For‐Performance: Evidence From A Natural Experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(8), pages 962-978, August.
    21. Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November.
    22. Eijkenaar, Frank & Emmert, Martin & Scheppach, Manfred & Schöffski, Oliver, 2013. "Effects of pay for performance in health care: A systematic review of systematic reviews," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 115-130.
    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. Mauro, Marianna & Rotundo, Giorgia & Giancotti, Monica, 2019. "Effect of financial incentives on breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening delivery rates: Results from a systematic literature review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(12), pages 1210-1220.
    2. Gregory Merlo & Mieke Driel & Lisa Hall, 2020. "Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.

    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Jonathan Sicsic & Carine Franc, 2017. "Impact assessment of a pay-for-performance program on breast cancer screening in France using micro data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(5), pages 609-621, June.
    3. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Mesfin G. Genie & Nicolas Krucien & Mandy Ryan, 2021. "Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1291-1305, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    7. Osborne, Matthew & Lambe, Fiona & Ran, Ylva & Dehmel, Naira & Tabacco, Giovanni Alberto & Balungira, Joshua & Pérez-Viana, Borja & Widmark, Erik & Holmlid, Stefan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2022. "Designing development interventions: The application of service design and discrete choice experiments in complex settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    8. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.
    9. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2021. "On the Value of Birth Weight," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(5), pages 1130-1159, October.
    10. Panayotis Constantinou & Jonathan Sicsic & Carine Franc, 2017. "Effect of pay-for-performance on cervical cancer screening participation in France," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 181-201, June.
    11. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    12. Kathleen Manipis & Brendan Mulhern & Philip Haywood & Rosalie Viney & Stephen Goodall, 2023. "Estimating the willingness-to-pay to avoid the consequences of foodborne illnesses: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(5), pages 831-852, July.
    13. Oedingen, Carina & Bartling, Tim & Schrem, Harald & Mühlbacher, Axel C. & Krauth, Christian, 2021. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    14. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    15. Nicolas Krucien & Amiram Gafni & Nathalie Pelletier‐Fleury, 2015. "Empirical Testing of the External Validity of a Discrete Choice Experiment to Determine Preferred Treatment Option: The Case of Sleep Apnea," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(8), pages 951-965, August.
    16. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    17. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    18. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    19. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    20. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.

    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:eee:socmed:v:167:y:2016:i:c:p:116-127. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.