IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i2p224-233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eliciting Population Preferences for Mass Colorectal Cancer Screening Organization

Author

Listed:
  • Maximilien Nayaradou

    (IFD (Institut Finance Dauphine), Université Paris, Dauphine, France, ERI3 INSERM “Cancers & Populations†, CHU Caen, France)

  • Célia Berchi

    (ERI3 INSERM “Cancers & Populations†, CHU Caen, France)

  • Olivier Dejardin

    (ERI3 INSERM “Cancers & Populations†, CHU Caen, France)

  • Guy Launoy

    (ERI3 INSERM “Cancers & Populations†, CHU Caen, France, guy.launoy@unicaen.fr)

Abstract

Introduction. The implementation of mass colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a public health priority. Population participation is fundamental for the success of CRC screening as for any cancer screening program. The preferences of the population may influence their likelihood of participation. Objectives. The authors sought to elicit population preferences for CRC screening test characteristics to improve the design of CRC screening campaigns. Methods. A discrete choice experiment was used. Questionnaires were compiled with a set of pairs of hypothetical CRC screening scenarios. The survey was conducted by mail from June 2006 to October 2006 on a representative sample of 2000 inhabitants, aged 50 to 74 years from the northwest of France, who were randomly selected from electoral lists. Questionnaires were sent to 2000 individuals, each of whom made 3 or 4 discrete choices between hypothetical tests that differed in 7 attributes: how screening is offered, process, sensitivity, rate of unnecessary colonoscopy, expected mortality reduction, method of screening test result transmission, and cost. Results. Complete responses were received from 656 individuals (32.8%). The attributes that influenced population preferences included expected mortality reduction, sensitivity, cost, and process. Participants from high social classes were particularly influenced by sensitivity. Conclusions. The results demonstrate that the discrete choice experiment provides information on patient preferences for CRC screening: improving screening program effectiveness, for instance, by improving test sensitivity (the most valued attribute) would increase satisfaction among the general population with regard to CRC screening programs. Additional studies are required to study how patient preferences actually affect adherence to regular screening programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Maximilien Nayaradou & Célia Berchi & Olivier Dejardin & Guy Launoy, 2010. "Eliciting Population Preferences for Mass Colorectal Cancer Screening Organization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(2), pages 224-233, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:2:p:224-233
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09342747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09342747
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09342747?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. Rochelle Belkar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2006. "Why worry about awareness in choice problems? Econometric analysis of screening for cervical cancer," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1), pages 33-47, January.
    2. Drakopoulos, S A, 1994. "Hierarchical Choice in Economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 133-153, June.
    3. Célia Berchi & Jean-Marc Dupuis & Guy Launoy, 2006. "The reasons of general practitioners for promoting colorectal cancer mass screening in France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(2), pages 91-98, June.
    4. Celia Berchi, 2006. "The reasons of general practitioners for promoting colorectal cancer mass screening in France," Post-Print halshs-00109389, HAL.
    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. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    2. 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.
    3. Maximilien Nayaradou & Sébastien Nouet & Manuel Plisson, 2016. "Les mécanismes économiques et financiers associés à la couverture dépendance : une analyse exploratoire sur données bancaires," Revue d'économie financière, Association d'économie financière, vol. 0(2), pages 273-326.

    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. 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.
    3. Eline Aas, 2009. "Pecuniary compensation increases participation in screening for colorectal cancer," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 337-354, March.
    4. Boxebeld, Sander, 2024. "Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    5. Carman, K.G. & Mosca, I., 2011. "Who Takes Advantage of Free Flu Shots? Examining the Effects of an Expansion in Coverage," Discussion Paper 2011-024, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    6. Dieter Pennerstorfer & Nora Schindler & Christoph Weiss & Biliana Yontcheva, 2020. "Income Inequality and Product Variety: Empirical Evidence," Economics working papers 2020-17, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    7. Fiebig, Denzil G. & Haas, Marion & Hossain, Ishrat & Street, Deborah J. & Viney, Rosalie, 2009. "Decisions about Pap tests: What influences women and providers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 1766-1774, May.
    8. BOUCKAERT, Nicolas & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2013. "Differing types of medical prevention appeal to different individuals," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2013038, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    9. Tae-Hee Jo, 2015. "Financing Investment under Fundamental Uncertainty and Instability: A Heterodox Microeconomic View," Bulletin of Political Economy, Bulletin of Political Economy, vol. 9(1), pages 33-54, June.
    10. Carman, K.G. & Kooreman, P., 2010. "Flu Shots, Mammogram, and the Perception of Probabilities," Other publications TiSEM fba970b8-6fc7-449b-acf9-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Meliyanni Johar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Using repeated choice experiments to evaluate the impact of policy changes on cervical screening," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1845-1855, May.
    12. Hediger, Cécile & Farsi, Mehdi & Weber, Sylvain, 2018. "Turn It Up and Open the Window: On the Rebound Effects in Residential Heating," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 21-39.
    13. Nachiketa Chattopadhyay & Amita Majumder & Dipankor Coondoo, 2009. "Demand Threshold, Zero Expenditure And Hierarchical Model Of Consumer Demand," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 91-118, February.
    14. Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 383-398, June.
    15. Brendan Markey‐Towler, 2019. "The New Microeconomics: A Psychological, Institutional, and Evolutionary Paradigm with Neoclassical Economics as a Special Case," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 78(1), pages 95-135, January.
    16. Lavoie, Marc, 2004. "Post Keynesian consumer theory: Potential synergies with consumer research and economic psychology," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 639-649, October.
    17. Chris Schilling & Duncan Mortimer & Kim Dalziel & Emma Heeley & John Chalmers & Philip Clarke, 2016. "Using Classification and Regression Trees (CART) to Identify Prescribing Thresholds for Cardiovascular Disease," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 195-205, February.
    18. Cheah, Yong Kang, 2018. "The utilization of diagnostic tests among the elderly: Evidence from Malaysia," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 121-128.
    19. Katherine Carman & Peter Kooreman, 2014. "Probability perceptions and preventive health care," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 43-71, August.
    20. Beaudreau, Bernard C., 2012. "A humanistic theory of economic behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 222-234.

    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:30:y:2010:i:2:p:224-233. 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.