Literature DB >> 19339094

Decisions about Pap tests: what influences women and providers?

Denzil G Fiebig1, Marion Haas, Ishrat Hossain, Deborah J Street, Rosalie Viney.   

Abstract

Despite the success internationally of cervical screening programs debate continues about optimal program design. This includes increasing participation rates among under-screened women, reducing unnecessary early re-screening, improving accuracy of and confidence in screening tests, and determining the cost-effectiveness of program parameters, such as type of screening test, screening interval and target group. For all these issues, information about consumer and provider preferences and insight into the potential impact of any change to program design on consumer and provider behaviour are essential inputs into evidence-based health policy decision making. This paper reports the results of discrete choice experiments to investigate women's choices and providers' recommendations in relation to cervical screening in Australia. Separate experiments were conducted with women and general practitioners, with attributes selected to allow for investigation of how women and general practitioners differ in their preferences for attributes of screening programs. Our results indicate a considerable commonality in preferences but the alignment was not complete. Women put relatively more weight on cost, chance of a false positive and if the recommended screening interval were changed to one year.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19339094     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  12 in total

1.  What Australian women want and when they want it: cervical screening testing preferences, decision-making styles and information needs.

Authors:  Mbathio Dieng; Lyndal Trevena; Robin M Turner; Monika Wadolowski; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-07-04       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Recommendations on screening for cervical cancer.

Authors:  James Dickinson; Eva Tsakonas; Sarah Conner Gorber; Gabriela Lewin; Elizabeth Shaw; Harminder Singh; Michel Joffres; Richard Birtwhistle; Marcello Tonelli; Verna Mai; Meg McLachlin
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Reconceptualising the external validity of discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Joffre Swait
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Stuart J Wright; Caroline M Vass; Gene Sim; Michael Burton; Denzil G Fiebig; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Rebekah Hall; Antonieta Medina-Lara; Willie Hamilton; Anne E Spencer
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  What's good and bad about contraceptive products?: a best-worst attribute experiment comparing the values of women consumers and GPs.

Authors:  Stephanie A Knox; Rosalie C Viney; Deborah J Street; Marion R Haas; Denzil G Fiebig; Edith Weisberg; Deborah Bateson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Designing a package of sexual and reproductive health and HIV outreach services to meet the heterogeneous preferences of young people in Malawi: results from a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Christine Michaels-Igbokwe; Mylene Lagarde; John Cairns; Fern Terris-Prestholt
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2015-05-09

8.  Comparison of benefit-risk preferences of patients and physicians regarding cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors using discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Ji-Hye Byun; Sun-Hong Kwon; Ji-Eun Lee; Ji-Eun Cheon; Eun-Jin Jang; Eui-Kyung Lee
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 9.  Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990-2013.

Authors:  Carol Mansfield; Florence K L Tangka; Donatus U Ekwueme; Judith Lee Smith; Gery P Guy; Chunyu Li; A Brett Hauber
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 2.830

10.  The relative importance of perceived doctor's attitude on the decision to consult for symptomatic osteoarthritis: a choice-based conjoint analysis study.

Authors:  Domenica Coxon; Martin Frisher; Clare Jinks; Kelvin Jordan; Zoe Paskins; George Peat
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.