IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v11y2013i5p499-507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Techniques and Intention to Attend: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • J. Hummel
  • Lotte Steuten
  • C. Groothuis-Oudshoorn
  • Nick Mulder
  • Maarten IJzerman

Abstract

The multi-criteria decision analysis revealed the attributes of the screening techniques that are most important so as to increase intention to participate in a screening program. Even though the respondents may recognize the high importance of diagnostic effectiveness in the long term, their short-term decision to attend the screening tests may be less driven by this consideration. Our analysis suggests that inconvenience, safety, and frequency of the test are the strongest technique-related determinants of the respondents’ intention to participate in colorectal screening programs. Copyright Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Suggested Citation

  • J. Hummel & Lotte Steuten & C. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Nick Mulder & Maarten IJzerman, 2013. "Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Techniques and Intention to Attend: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 499-507, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:11:y:2013:i:5:p:499-507
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-013-0051-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40258-013-0051-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-013-0051-z?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. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    2. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    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. Sean Pascoe & Toni Cannard & Natalie A. Dowling & Catherine M. Dichmont & Sian Breen & Tom Roberts & Rachel J. Pears & George M. Leigh, 2019. "Developing Harvest Strategies to Achieve Ecological, Economic and Social Sustainability in Multi-Sector Fisheries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.

    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. James G. Dolan & Emily Boohaker & Jeroan Allison & Thomas F. Imperiale, 2014. "Can Streamlined Multicriteria Decision Analysis Be Used to Implement Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 746-755, August.
    2. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    6. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    7. Binkai Xu & Lei Liu & Yanming Sun, 2023. "The Spatio-Temporal Pattern of Regional Coordinated Development in the Common Prosperity Demonstration Zone—Evidence from Zhejiang Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-21, February.
    8. Jennifer Priaulx & Marcell Csanádi & Harry J. de Koning & Martin McKee, 2019. "A choice experiment to identify the most important elements of a successful cancer screening program according to those who research and manage such programs," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 34-45, January.
    9. Itzel Inti Maria Donati & Davide Viaggi & Zorica Srdjevic & Bojan Srdjevic & Antonella Di Fonzo & Teresa Del Giudice & Orlando Cimino & Andrea Martelli & Anna Dalla Marta & Roberto Henke & Filiberto A, 2023. "An Analysis of Preference Weights and Setting Priorities by Irrigation Advisory Services Users Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, August.
    10. Guilan Kong & Lili Jiang & Xiaofeng Yin & Tianbing Wang & Dong-Ling Xu & Jian-Bo Yang & Yonghua Hu, 2018. "Combining principal component analysis and the evidential reasoning approach for healthcare quality assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 679-699, December.
    11. Dong, Yucheng & Hong, Wei-Chiang & Xu, Yinfeng & Yu, Shui, 2013. "Numerical scales generated individually for analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(3), pages 654-662.
    12. Annamaria Nifo & Gaetano Vecchione, 2014. "Do Institutions Play a Role in Skilled Migration? The Case of Italy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(10), pages 1628-1649, October.
    13. Trey A. Baird & Davene R. Wright & Maria T. Britto & Ellen A. Lipstein & Andrew T. Trout & Shireen E. Hayatghaibi, 2023. "Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(6), pages 579-591, November.
    14. Phillips Kathryn A. & Sakowski Julie Ann & Liang Su-Ying & Ponce Ninez A., 2013. "Economic Perspectives on Personalized Health Care and Prevention," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 23-52, June.
    15. Rischatsch, Maurus, 2015. "Who joins the network? Physicians’ resistance to take budgetary co-responsibility," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 109-121.
    16. Gabriela D. Oliveira & Luis C. Dias, 2020. "The potential learning effect of a MCDA approach on consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 767-787, October.
    17. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    18. Alison Sweet & David Lee & Kerry Gairy & Denver Phiri & Timothy Reason & Kevin Lock, 2011. "The impact of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening on the UK NHS," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 51-64, January.
    19. Lancsar, Emily & Wildman, John & Donaldson, Cam & Ryan, Mandy & Baker, Rachel, 2011. "Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 466-478, March.
    20. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:11:y:2013:i:5:p:499-507. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.