IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v16y1996i2p161-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Making with Respect to Diagnostic Testing

Author

Listed:
  • John Cairns
  • Phil Shackley
  • Vanora Hundley

Abstract

This paper outlines a model for valuing the benefits of antenatal screening based on the analysis of individual decision making with respect to consequent diagnostic test ing. Central to the model is the idea that the benefits of screening can be measured by valuing the improved information generated from screening. The model is developed in the context of antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis (CF). Benefits are as sessed by surveying women in the general population in order to establish their pref erences for two alternative methods of CF carrier screening—stepwise and couple screening. Preferences are elicited using standard-gamble questions in which women from a population-based random sample are asked to trade off risk of fetal loss with improved information from diagnostic testing. A series of standard-gamble questions is employed to elicit utility values for each of the possible information outcomes from screening. The expected utilities of both screening methods are calculated at both individual and group levels. The results suggest that the use of individual decision making with respect to diagnostic testing as a means of valuing the benefits of screen ing may have wide applications. Key words: benefits; antenatal screening; information; standard gamble; expected utility. (Med Decis Making 1996;16:161-168)

Suggested Citation

  • John Cairns & Phil Shackley & Vanora Hundley, 1996. "Decision Making with Respect to Diagnostic Testing," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 161-168, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:2:p:161-168
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9601600208
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9601600208?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. Botkin, J.R. & Alemagno, S., 1992. "Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis: A pilot study of the attitudes of pregnant women," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 82(5), pages 723-725.
    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. Stavros Petrou, 2001. "Methodological limitations of economic evaluations of antenatal screening," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 775-778, December.
    2. Peter J. Neumann & Joshua T. Cohen & James K. Hammitt & Thomas W. Concannon & Hannah R. Auerbach & ChiHui Fang & David M. Kent, 2012. "Willingness‐to‐pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 238-251, March.
    3. Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley & Mona Abdalla, 1997. "Using Willingness To Pay To Value Close Substitutes: Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis Revisited," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 145-159, March.

    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. Shackley, Phil & Cairns, John, 1996. "Evaluating the benefits of antenatal screening: an alternative approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 103-115, May.
    2. Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley & Mona Abdalla & Zosia Miedzybrodzka, 1995. "Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(6), pages 439-452, November.
    3. John Cairns & Phil Shackley, 1993. "Sometimes sensitive, seldom specific: A review of the economics of screening," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(1), pages 43-53, April.

    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:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:2:p:161-168. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.