IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v18y2009i12p1420-1439.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Deborah A. Marshall
  • F. Reed Johnson
  • Nathalie A. Kulin
  • Semra Özdemir
  • Judith M. E. Walsh
  • John K. Marshall
  • Stephanie Van Bebber
  • Kathryn A. Phillips

Abstract

Background: Patient preferences can affect colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test use. We compared utility‐based preferences for alternative CRC screening tests from a stated‐preference discrete‐choice survey of the general population and physicians in Canada and the United States. Methods: General population respondents (Canada, n=501; US, n=1087) participated in a survey with 12 choice scenarios and 9 CRC screening test attributes. Physicians (n=100, both Canada and US) reported expected patient preferences. We estimated relative importance of attributes using bivariate probit regression analysis and calculated willingness‐to‐pay for various CRC screening tests. Results: In 28 and 31% of scenarios, Canadian and US respondents, respectively, chose no screening over a hypothetical test. Canadian (45%) and US (46%) physicians expected patients to choose no screening more often. For all groups the most important attribute was sensitivity, but physicians' perception of patients' preferences are significantly different from actual preferences. Other key attributes are those related to test performance or the testing process. Fecal DNA, colonoscopy, and virtual colonoscopy were the most preferred tests by all groups, but respondents were willing‐to‐pay more than physicians predicted. Conclusion: Physicians' perception of patients' preferences are quite different from those of the general population. However, among general population and physicians, Canadian and US preferences were similar. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:12:p:1420-1439
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1437
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1437
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1437?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. repec:bpj:rneart:v:3:y:2004:i:3:p:228-247 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    3. F. Reed Johnson & Melissa Ruby Banzhaf & William H. Desvousges, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple‐format, stated‐preference approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 295-317, June.
    4. Savage Scott J. & Waldman Donald M., 2004. "United States Demand for Internet Access," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Emma McIntosh & Phil Shackley, 1998. "Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 373-378, June.
    6. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    7. Stirling Bryan & Lisa Gold & Rob Sheldon & Martin Buxton, 2000. "Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(5), pages 385-395, July.
    8. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    9. J.M.C. Santos Silva, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (2)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 913-918, September.
    10. Mandy Ryan, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (1)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 909-912, September.
    11. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    12. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Jes Søgaard, 2001. "Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 617-634, October.
    13. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    14. Tara Maddala & Kathryn A. Phillips & F. Reed Johnson, 2003. "An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1035-1047, December.
    15. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Jorien Veldwijk & Mattijs S Lambooij & Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Henriëtte A Smit & G Ardine de Wit, 2014. "The Effect of Including an Opt-Out Option in Discrete Choice Experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Rebecca Hancock-Howard, 2010. "Deborah Marshall, PhD," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 207-208, December.

    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. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    2. F. Reed Johnson & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Semra Özdemir & Deborah A. Marshall & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2011. "How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 323-330, March.
    3. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    4. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    5. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    6. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
    7. Ebenezer Kwabena Tetteh & Steve Morris & Nigel Titcheneker-Hooker, 2017. "Discrete-choice modelling of patient preferences for modes of drug administration," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni, 2008. "Eliciting the demand for long‐term care coverage: a discrete choice modelling analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 411-433, March.
    9. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 283-298, October.
    10. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16, January.
    11. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    12. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    13. Wakamatsu, Mihoko & Shin, Kong Joo & Wilson, Clevo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Exploring a Gap between Australia and Japan in the Economic Valuation of Whale Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 397-407.
    14. 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.
    15. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    16. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    17. Chandoevwit, Worawan & Wasi, Nada, 2020. "Incorporating discrete choice experiments into policy decisions: Case of designing public long-term care insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    18. Carol Mansfield & Daniel J. Phaneuf & F. Reed Johnson & Jui-Chen Yang & Robert Beach, 2008. "Preferences for Public Lands Management under Competing Uses: The Case of Yellowstone National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 282-305.
    19. Waleska Sigüernza & Petr Mariel, 2013. "Valoración económica de los servicios sanitarios en la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 207(4), pages 71-99, December.
    20. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).

    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:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:12:p:1420-1439. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.