Literature DB >> 29304944

Women's Benefits and Harms Trade-Offs in Breast Cancer Screening: Results from a Discrete-Choice Experiment.

Jonathan Sicsic1, Nathalie Pelletier-Fleury2, Nora Moumjid3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, the benefits and harms balance of breast cancer (BC) screening has been widely debated.
OBJECTIVES: To elicit women's trade-offs between the benefits and harms of BC screening and to analyze the main determinants of these trade-offs.
METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment with seven attributes depicting BC screening programs including varying levels of BC mortality, overdiagnosis, and false-positive result was used. Eight hundred twelve women aged 40 to 74 years with no personal history of BC recruited by a survey institute and representative of the French general population (age, socioeconomic level, and geographical location) completed the discrete-choice experiment. Preference heterogeneity was investigated using generalized multinomial logit models from which individual trade-offs were derived, and their main determinants were assessed using generalized linear models. Screening acceptance rates under various benefits and harms ratios were simulated on the basis of the distribution of individual preferences.
RESULTS: The women would be willing to accept on average 14.1 overdiagnosis cases (median = 9.6) and 47.8 false-positive results (median = 27.2) to avoid one BC-related death. After accounting for preference heterogeneity, less than 50% of women would be willing to accept 10 overdiagnosis cases for one BC-related death avoided. Screening acceptance rates were higher among women with higher socioeconomic level and lower among women with poor health.
CONCLUSIONS: Women are sensitive to both the benefits and the harms of BC screening and their preferences are highly heterogeneous. Our study provides useful results for public health authorities and clinicians willing to improve their recommendations of BC screening on the basis of women's preferences.
Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  benefits and harms balance; breast cancer screening; discrete-choice experiment; overdiagnosis; preference heterogeneity; willingness to accept

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29304944     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.07.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Factors affecting intention to screen after being informed of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a study in 5 European countries in 2021.

Authors:  David Ritchie; Guido Van Hal; Stephan Van den Broucke
Journal:  Arch Public Health       Date:  2022-05-23

3.  The Modest Effects of Fact Boxes on Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Michael R Eber; Cass R Sunstein; James K Hammitt; Jennifer M Yeh
Journal:  J Risk Uncertain       Date:  2021-02-17

4.  Women's preferences, willingness-to-pay, and predicted uptake for single-nucleotide polymorphism gene testing to guide personalized breast cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Xin Yi Wong; Catharina Gm Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Chuen Seng Tan; Janine A van Til; Mikael Hartman; Kok Joon Chong; Maarten J IJzerman; Hwee-Lin Wee
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 2.711

5.  An educational intervention based on the extended parallel process model to improve attitude, behavioral intention, and early breast cancer diagnosis: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Vahideh Termeh Zonouzy; Shamsaddin Niknami; Fazlollah Ghofranipour; Ali Montazeri
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2018-12-18

6.  Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions.

Authors:  Lise Mørkved Helsingen; Linan Zeng; Reed Alexander Siemieniuk; Lyubov Lytvyn; Per Olav Vandvik; Thomas Agoritsas; Michael Bretthauer; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 7.  The current status of risk-stratified breast screening.

Authors:  Ash Kieran Clift; David Dodwell; Simon Lord; Stavros Petrou; Sir Michael Brady; Gary S Collins; Julia Hippisley-Cox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 9.075

Review 8.  Methodology to derive preference for health screening programmes using discrete choice experiments: a scoping review.

Authors:  David Brain; Amarzaya Jadambaa; Sanjeewa Kularatna
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 2.908

9.  Population preferences for breast cancer screening policies: Discrete choice experiment in Belarus.

Authors:  Olena Mandrik; Alesya Yaumenenka; Rolando Herrero; Marcel F Jonker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.