IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v2y1993i1p43-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sometimes sensitive, seldom specific: A review of the economics of screening

Author

Listed:
  • John Cairns
  • Phil Shackley

Abstract

As the policy relevance of screening has increased, the application of the techniques of economic evaluation to screening has become widespread. This paper critically reviews the literature, and in so doing, highlights several ways in which future evaluations might be improved. These include: the adoption of a broader perspective regarding the questions to be addressed and the relevant margins; a reconsideration of the nature of the benefits and how they might be valued; and a greater emphasis being placed upon the role of individual behaviour and its potential impact on the outcome of economic evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • John Cairns & Phil Shackley, 1993. "Sometimes sensitive, seldom specific: A review of the economics of screening," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(1), pages 43-53, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:2:y:1993:i:1:p:43-53
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.4730020106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4730020106
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.4730020106?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. Botkin, J.R. & Alemagno, S., 1992. "Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis: A pilot study of the attitudes of pregnant women," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 82(5), pages 723-725.
    2. Donaldson, Cam, 1990. "Willingness to pay for publicly-provided goods : A Possible Measure of Benefit?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 103-118, June.
    3. D Feeny & G Torrance, 1989. "Incorporating Utility-based Quality-of-life Assessment Measures in Clinical Trials: Two Examples," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 12, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    4. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    5. Victor R. Fuchs & Joseph P. Newhouse, 1978. "The Conference and Unresolved Problems," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Physician and Patient Behavior, pages 5-18, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Hey, John D. & Patel, Mahesh S., 1983. "Prevention and cure? : Or: Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 119-138, August.
    7. Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Lubbe, Koos Th. N. & van Oortmarssen, Gerrit J. & van Agt, Heleen M. A. & van Ballegooijen, Marjolein & Habbema, J. Dik F., 1990. "Economic aspects of cervical cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 30(10), pages 1081-1087, January.
    8. Karen Gerard & Gavin Mooney, 1993. "Qaly league tables: Handle with care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(1), pages 59-64, April.
    9. Bay, K.S. & Flathman, D. & Nestman, L., 1976. "The worth of a screening program: an application of a statistical decision model for the benefit evaluation of screening projects," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 66(2), pages 145-150.
    10. Henderson, John B., 1982. "An economic appraisal of the benefits of screening for open spina bifida," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 545-560, January.
    11. Johannesson, Magnus & Jonsson, Bengt, 1991. "Economic evaluation in health care: Is there a role for cost-benefit analysis?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, February.
    12. Nord, Erik, 1989. "The significance of contextual factors in valuing health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 189-198, December.
    13. Hall, Jane & Gerard, Karen & Salkeld, Glenn & Richardson, Jeff, 1992. "A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 993-1004, May.
    14. Bush, J. W. & Fanshel, S. & Chen, M. M., 1972. "Analysis of a tuberculin testing program using a health status index," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 49-68, February.
    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. Karen Gerard & Marian Shanahan & Jordan Louviere, 2003. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: A pilot study of breast screening participation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(9), pages 1073-1085.
    2. Stavros Petrou, 2001. "Methodological limitations of economic evaluations of antenatal screening," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 775-778, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J. & Quevedo, Jose L., 2006. "The effect of medical experience on the economic evaluation of health policies. A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 512-524, July.
    5. Hall, Jane & Fiebig, Denzil G. & King, Madeleine T. & Hossain, Ishrat & Louviere, Jordan J., 2006. "What influences participation in genetic carrier testing?: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 520-537, May.

    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. Shackley, Phil & Cairns, John, 1996. "Evaluating the benefits of antenatal screening: an alternative approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 103-115, May.
    2. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    3. O'Conor, Richard M. & Blomquist, Glenn C., 1997. "Measurement of consumer-patient preferences using a hybrid contingent valuation method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 667-683, December.
    4. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    5. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.
    6. José Mª Abellán & José Luis Pinto & Ildefonso Méndez & Xabier Badía, 2004. "A test of the predictive validity of non-linear QALY models using time trade-off utilities," Economics Working Papers 741, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    7. Paula K. Lorgelly & Kenny D. Lawson & Elisabeth A.L. Fenwick & Andrew H. Briggs, 2010. "Outcome Measurement in Economic Evaluations of Public Health Interventions: a Role for the Capability Approach?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-16, May.
    8. Phillips, Kathryn A. & Homan, Rick K. & Luft, Harold S. & Hiatt, Patricia H. & Olson, Kent R. & Kearney, Thomas E. & Heard, Stuart E., 1997. "Willingness to pay for poison control centers," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 343-357, June.
    9. Angela Robinson & Anne Spencer, 2006. "Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 393-402, April.
    10. Cam Donaldson & Stephen Birch & Amiram Gafni, 2002. "The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 55-70, January.
    11. Arthur E. Attema & Matthijs M. Versteegh & Mark Oppe & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Elly A. Stolk, 2013. "Lead Time Tto: Leading To Better Health State Valuations?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 376-392, April.
    12. Marc A. Koopmanschap & Frans F. H. Rutten, 1994. "The impact of indirect costs on outcomes of health care programs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(6), pages 385-393, November.
    13. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    14. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    15. Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Jan J. V. Busschbach & Leida M. Lamers & Paul F. M. Krabbe, 2005. "The gap effect: discontinuities of preferences around dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 679-685, July.
    16. Paul Clay Sorum, 1999. "Measuring Patient Preferences by Willingness to Pay to Avoid," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(1), pages 27-37, January.
    17. Guillem López-Casasnovas & Berta Rivera, 2002. "Las políticas de equidad en salud y las relaciones entre renta y salud," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 161(2), pages 99-126, June.
    18. Debby Helvoort-Postulart & Carmen Dirksen & Alfons Kessels & Jos Engelshoven & M. Myriam Hunink, 2009. "A comparison between willingness to pay and willingness to give up time," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 81-91, February.
    19. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Göran Karlsson, 1996. "Outcome measurement in economic evaluation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(4), pages 279-296, July.
    20. Kristina Boye & Louis Matza & Kimberly Walter & Kate Brunt & Andrew Palsgrove & Aodan Tynan, 2011. "Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 219-230, June.

    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:2:y:1993:i:1:p:43-53. 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.