IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i5p586-600.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Charlotte Kelley Jones

    (Cancer Behavioural Science Cancer Prevention Group, King’s College, London, UK)

  • Suzanne Scott

    (Professor of Health Psychology, Queen Mary University London, London, UK)

  • Nora Pashayan

    (Professor of Applied Cancer Research, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK)

  • Stephen Morris

    (Rand Professor of Health Services Research, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK)

  • Yasmina Okan

    (Department of Communication, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
    Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, Leeds, UK)

  • Jo Waller

    (Professor of Cancer Behavioural Science, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK)

Abstract

Background A risk-stratified breast screening program could offer low-risk women less screening than is currently offered by the National Health Service. The acceptability of this approach may be enhanced if it corresponds to UK women’s screening preferences and values. Objectives To elicit and quantify preferences for low-risk screening options. Methods Women aged 40 to 70 y with no history of breast cancer took part in an online discrete choice experiment. We generated 32 hypothetical low-risk screening programs defined by 5 attributes (start age, end age, screening interval, risk of dying from breast cancer, and risk of overdiagnosis), the levels of which were systematically varied between the programs. Respondents were presented with 8 choice sets and asked to choose between 2 screening alternatives or no screening. Preference data were analyzed using conditional logit regression models. The relative importance of attributes and the mean predicted probability of choosing each program were estimated. Results Participants ( N  = 502) preferred all screening programs over no screening. An older starting age of screening, younger end age of screening, longer intervals between screening, and increased risk of dying had a negative impact on support for screening programs ( P  

Suggested Citation

  • Charlotte Kelley Jones & Suzanne Scott & Nora Pashayan & Stephen Morris & Yasmina Okan & Jo Waller, 2024. "Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(5), pages 586-600, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:5:p:586-600
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241254828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241254828
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241254828?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. John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1021-1041, September.
    2. Peter M. Sandman & Neil D. Weinstein & Paul Miller, 1994. "High Risk or Low: How Location on a “Risk Ladder” Affects Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 35-45, February.
    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. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Bliemer, Michiel C.J., 2019. "Information theoretic-based sampling of observations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 181-197.
    2. Liu, Jianing & Wen, Xiao & Jian, Sisi, 2024. "Toward better equity: Analyzing travel patterns through a neural network approach in mobility-as-a-service," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 110-126.
    3. Ioanna Arkoudi & Carlos Lima Azevedo & Francisco C. Pereira, 2021. "Combining Discrete Choice Models and Neural Networks through Embeddings: Formulation, Interpretability and Performance," Papers 2109.12042, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    4. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Vidale, E & Pettenella, D & Gatto, P & Secco, L, 23. "What can we sell behind timber production?," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 44, May.
    6. Sydenham, Rikke Vognbjerg & Jarbøl, Dorte Ejg & Hansen, Malene Plejdrup & Justesen, Ulrik Stenz & Watson, Verity & Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov, 2022. "Prescribing antibiotics: Factors driving decision-making in general practice. A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    7. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    8. Sriwastava, Ambuj & Reichert, Peter, 2023. "Reducing sample size requirements by extending discrete choice experiments to indifference elicitation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    9. Pascoe, Sean & Doshi, Amar & Kovac, Mladen & Austin, Angelica, 2019. "Estimating coastal and marine habitat values by combining multi-criteria methods with choice experiments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Raux, Charles & Chevalier, Amandine & Bougna, Emmanuel & Hilton, Denis, 2021. "Mobility choices and climate change: Assessing the effects of social norms, emissions information and economic incentives," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    11. Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio & Le Pira, Michela, 2018. "Gamification design to foster stakeholder engagement and behavior change: An application to urban freight transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 119-132.
    12. Valerio Gatta & Edoardo Marcucci, 2013. "Ex-Post Implications Of Ex-Ante Data Acquisition Strategies In Multiagent-Type Urban Freight Policy Evaluation," Working Papers 0613, CREI Università degli Studi Roma Tre, revised 2013.
    13. Hammerle, Mara & White, Lee V. & Sturmberg, Bjorn, 2023. "Solar for renters: Investigating investor perspectives of barriers and policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    14. Khakdaman, Masoud & Rezaei, Jafar & Tavasszy, Lóránt A., 2020. "Shippers’ willingness to delegate modal control in freight transportation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    15. Apurba Shee & Calum G. Turvey & Ana Marr, 2021. "Heterogeneous Demand and Supply for an Insurance‐linked Credit Product in Kenya: A Stated Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 244-267, February.
    16. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    17. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    18. Assele, Samson Yaekob & Meulders, Michel & Vandebroek, Martina, 2023. "Sample size selection for discrete choice experiments using design features," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    19. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    20. Chinedu, Obi & Sanou, Edouard & Tur-Cardona, Juan & Bartolini, Fabio & Gheysen, Godelieve & Speelman, Stijn, 2018. "Farmers’ valuation of transgenic biofortified sorghum for nutritional improvement in Burkina Faso: A latent class approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 132-140.

    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:44:y:2024:i:5:p:586-600. 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.