IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i6p621-631.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Older Adults Consider Age, Life Expectancy, Quality of Life, and Physician Recommendations When Making Cancer Screening Decisions? Results from a National Survey Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Ellen M. Janssen

    (Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
    Center for Medical Technology Policy, Baltimore, MD, USA)

  • Craig E. Pollack

    (The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA)

  • Cynthia Boyd

    (The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA)

  • John F. P. Bridges

    (The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA)

  • Qian-Li Xue

    (The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA)

  • Antonio C. Wolff

    (The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA)

  • Nancy L. Schoenborn

    (The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA)

Abstract

Background. Older adults with limited life expectancy frequently receive cancer screening, although on average, harms outweigh benefits. We examined the influence of life expectancy on older adults’ cancer screening decisions relative to three other factors. Methods. Adults aged 65+ years ( N = 1272) were recruited from a national online survey panel. Using a discrete choice experiment, we systematically varied a hypothetical patient’s life expectancy, age, quality of life, and physician’s recommendation and asked whether the participant would choose screening. Participants were randomized to questions about colonoscopy or prostate-specific antigen/mammography screenings. Logistic regression produced preference weights that quantified the relative influence of the 4 factors on screening decisions. Results. 879 older adults completed the survey, 660 of whom varied their screening choices in response to the 4 factors we tested. The age of the hypothetical patient had the largest influence on choosing screening: the effect of age being 65 versus 85 years had a preference weight of 2.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.22, 2.65). Life expectancy (10 versus 1 year) had the second largest influence (preference weight: 1.64, CI: 1.41, 1.87). Physician recommendation (screen versus do not screen) and quality of life (good versus poor) were less influential, with preference weights of 0.90 (CI: 0.72, 1.08) and 0.68 (CI: 0.52, 0.83), respectively. Conclusions. While clinical practice guidelines increasingly use life expectancy in addition to age to guide screening decisions, we find that age is the most influential factor, independent of life expectancy, quality of life, and physician recommendation, in older adults’ cancer screening choices. Strategies to reduce overscreening should consider the importance patients give to continuing screening at younger ages, even when life expectancy is limited.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellen M. Janssen & Craig E. Pollack & Cynthia Boyd & John F. P. Bridges & Qian-Li Xue & Antonio C. Wolff & Nancy L. Schoenborn, 2019. "How Do Older Adults Consider Age, Life Expectancy, Quality of Life, and Physician Recommendations When Making Cancer Screening Decisions? Results from a National Survey Using a Discrete Choice Experim," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(6), pages 621-631, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:6:p:621-631
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19853516
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19853516
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19853516?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. 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.
    2. Trine Kjær & Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Kristian Hart‐Hansen, 2006. "Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1217-1228, November.
    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. Krucien, Nicolas & Ryan, Mandy & Hermens, Frouke, 2017. "Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 251-267.
    2. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.
    3. Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien & Frouke Hermens, 2018. "The eyes have it: Using eye tracking to inform information processing strategies in multi‐attributes choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 709-721, April.
    4. Mehdi Ammi & Christine Peyron, 2016. "Heterogeneity in general practitioners’ preferences for quality improvement programs: a choice experiment and policy simulation in France," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Domino Determann & Ida J Korfage & Mattijs S Lambooij & Michiel Bliemer & Jan Hendrik Richardus & Ewout W Steyerberg & Esther W de Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Acceptance of Vaccinations in Pandemic Outbreaks: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    6. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    7. de Bresser, Jochem & Knoef, Marike & van Ooijen, Raun, 2022. "Preferences for in-kind and in-cash home care insurance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Mesfin G. Genie & Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien, 2023. "Keeping an eye on cost: What can eye tracking tell us about attention to cost information in discrete choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 1101-1119, May.
    10. Sever, Ivan & Verbič, Miroslav & Klarić Sever, Eva, 2019. "Cost attribute in health care DCEs: Just adding another attribute or a trigger of change in the stated preferences?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    11. 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.
    12. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    16. Aki Tsuchiya & Nick Bansback & Arne Risa Hole & Brendan Mulhern, 2019. "Manipulating the 5 Dimensions of the EuroQol Instrument: The Effects on Self-Reporting Actual Health and Valuing Hypothetical Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 380-392, May.
    17. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2011. "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:39:y:2019:i:6:p:621-631. 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.