Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes.

D Gyrd-Hansen1, J Søgaard

  • 1Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. dgh@sam.sdu.dk

Health Economics
|December 18, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Prioritization, Incentives, and Resource Use for Sustainable Dentistry: The EU PRUDENT Project.

JDR clinical and translational research·2023
Same author

Providing more balanced information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening: A randomized survey among US and Norwegian women.

Preventive medicine reports·2021
Same author

Danish heart patients' participation in and experience with rehabilitation.

Scandinavian journal of public health·2012
Same author

Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice?

Health economics·2012
Same author

Responsiveness of observer rating scales by analysis of number of days until improvement in patients with major depression.

European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists·2009
Same author

Quality of life in rhinoconjunctivitis assessed with generic and disease-specific questionnaires.

Allergy·2008
Same journal

Healthcare Costs Following Medical Gender-Affirmation: Evidence From Whole-of-Population Australian Administrative Data.

Health economics·2026
Same journal

Lead in Drinking Water and Child Health: Evidence From Jackson, Mississippi.

Health economics·2026
Same journal

Health on the Move: The Impact of Poverty Alleviation Relocation on Healthcare Utilization in China.

Health economics·2026
Same journal

The Effects of Compulsory Licensing: A Case Study of HIV Drugs.

Health economics·2026
Same journal

Beyond Tobacco Prevention: The Effects of Tobacco 21 Laws on Young Adults' Body Weight.

Health economics·2026
Same journal

Assessing the Estimands and Estimates of Hospitalization Rates in Health Economics and Clinical Medicine.

Health economics·2026
See all related articles

This study surveyed individuals on their preferences for colorectal and breast cancer screening programs. Results show that incorporating patient preferences can improve economic evaluations of cancer screening.

Area of Science:

  • Health Economics
  • Health Services Research
  • Decision Science

Background:

  • Economic evaluations of cancer screening often omit intangible costs like patient anxiety.
  • Quantifying patient utility from reduced cancer mortality risk is challenging.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess individuals' preferences for colorectal and breast cancer screening programs.
  • To explore the integration of patient preferences into economic evaluations of cancer screening.

Main Methods:

  • Survey of 750 respondents ranking alternative screening program designs.
  • Discrete choice methods and discrete ranking modeling to analyze stated preferences.
  • Evaluation of program attributes: test frequency, risk reduction, false positive rates, and co-payment.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Patient preferences for cancer screening attributes were successfully elicited.
  • Discrete choice modeling demonstrated face validity and aligned with a priori hypotheses.
  • Identified relative weightings of various program attributes based on stated preferences.

Conclusions:

  • Large-scale surveys of patient preferences can enhance the quality of economic evaluations for cancer screening.
  • Incorporating intangible costs and benefits improves the comprehensiveness of economic models.
  • Findings support the use of discrete choice methods for preference elicitation in healthcare settings.