| Literature DB >> 31239646 |
Shunping Li1,2, Shimeng Liu1,2, Julie Ratcliffe3, Alastair Gray4, Gang Chen5.
Abstract
Objectives: Compared with other cancers, screening for cervical cancer is highly cost-effective. However, due to limited awareness about cervical cancer and many other factors, women's attendance rate in rural China for cervical cancer screening remains low. This study aimed to determine women's preferences for cervical cancer screening, to help enhance screening uptake.Entities:
Keywords: China; cervical cancer; discrete choice experiment; preference; screening
Year: 2019 PMID: 31239646 PMCID: PMC6554707 DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S201913
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence ISSN: 1177-889X Impact factor: 2.711
DCE attributes and levels
| Level 1 | Reduced 20% |
| Level 2 | Reduced 50% |
| Level 3 | Reduced 80% |
| Level 1 | Every three years |
| Level 2 | Every two years |
| Level 3 | Every year |
| Level 1 | County |
| Level 2 | Town |
| Level 3 | Village |
| Level 1 | Moderate |
| Level 2 | Mild |
| Level 3 | None |
| Level 1 | Three months to half year |
| Level 2 | Two weeks to three months |
| Level 3 | Within two weeks |
| Level 1 | 300 CNY |
| Level 2 | 50 CNY |
| Level 3 | 0 CNY |
Notes: The average annual exchange rate between U$ and CNY in 2015 was: US$1= CNY 6.227.
An example discrete choice task. Please consider the following two cervical cancer screening scenarios and let us know your preference by ticking the corresponding box. Will you actually participate in the screening program you chose if it was offered to you?
| Attribute | Screening scenario 1 | Screening scenario 2 |
|---|---|---|
| The percentage of cervical cancer-related death reduction | Reduced 80% | Reduced 20% |
| Screening interval | Every three years | Every year |
| Screening location | County | Village |
| Screening pain | None | Mild |
| Waiting time for results | Within 2 weeks | 2 weeks-3 months |
| Out-of-pocket costs | 300 CNY | 0 CNY |
| Your preference? | ☐ | ☐ |
| Will you actually participate in the screening program you chose if it was offered to you? | ☐Yes | ☐No |
Demographic characteristics of participants
| Characteristics of participants | Full sample N=405 | Analysis sample (who passed the consistency test) N=348 | Excluded sample (who failed the consistency test) N=57 | χ2 ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.940 (0.6) | |||||||
| Mean ± SD | 49.2 | 8.30 | 49.1 | 8.33 | 50.1 | 8.10 | |
| 30–44 | 110 | 27.2% | 97 | 27.9% | 13 | 22.8% | |
| 45–54 | 185 | 45.6% | 159 | 45.7% | 26 | 45.6% | |
| 55–65 | 110 | 27.2% | 92 | 26.4% | 18 | 31.6% | |
| 2.170 (0.3) | |||||||
| Married | 390 | 96.3% | 336 | 96.6% | 54 | 94.7% | |
| Divorced or widowed | 15 | 3.7% | 12 | 3.4% | 3 | 5.3% | |
| 4.892 (0.3) | |||||||
| Did not complete primary school | 111 | 27.4% | 93 | 26.7% | 18 | 31.6% | |
| Completed Primary school | 124 | 30.6% | 102 | 29.3% | 22 | 38.6% | |
| Completed Middle school | 134 | 33.1% | 120 | 34.5% | 14 | 24.6% | |
| Completed High school or above | 36 | 8.9% | 33 | 9.5% | 3 | 5.3% | |
| 0.966 (0.8) | |||||||
| <10,000 | 104 | 25.7% | 88 | 25.3% | 16 | 28.1% | |
| 10,000–20,000 | 104 | 25.7% | 89 | 25.6% | 15 | 26.3% | |
| 20,000–30,000 | 91 | 22.4% | 81 | 23.3% | 10 | 17.5% | |
| >30,000 | 106 | 26.2% | 90 | 25.9% | 16 | 28.1% | |
Main effects model for DCE (n=348)
| Attribute levels | Mean (SE) | SD (SE) | WTP (CNY) | 95% Confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No screening | −4.309** (0.599) | 5.532** (0.526) | |||
| Reduced 50% | 0.877** (0.113) | 0.055 (0.163) | 66.829 | 49.333 | 85.489 |
| Reduced 80% | 1.404** (0.127) | 0.503 (0.274) | 106.942 | 87.483 | 129.774 |
| Every 2 years | 0.992** (0.122) | 0.299 (0.305) | 75.606 | 57.220 | 96.445 |
| Every year | 1.260** (0.131) | 1.174** (0.168) | 96.000 | 75.892 | 119.296 |
| Town | 0.678** (0.128) | 0.963** (0.193) | 51.680 | 32.708 | 72.570 |
| Village | 1.448** (0.124) | 0.684** (0.191) | 110.270 | 91.514 | 131.890 |
| Mild pain | −0.219 (0.114) | 0.074 (0.193) | −16.667 | −34.738 | 0.147 |
| No pain | 0.270** (0.094) | 0.119 (0.260) | 20.582 | 6.628 | 34.994 |
| 2 weeks −3 months | 0.581** (0.118) | 0.131 (0.232) | 44.256 | 26.627 | 63.301 |
| <2weeks | 0.802** (0.118) | 0.799** (0.161) | 61.103 | 43.738 | 80.772 |
| Cost | −0.013** (0.001) | 0.009** (0.001) | |||
| Log likelihood | −1899.8619 | ||||
| Participants | |||||
| Observations | |||||
Notes: Mixed logit estimates reported. *P<0.05; ** P<0.01. Dummy coding used except for the cost variable.
Abbreviations: SD, Standard Deviation estimates reflect preference heterogeneity in the participants; SE, Standard Error.
Figure 1Simulated probability for cervical cancer screening under various potential policy scenarios. Baseline cervical cancer screening program: the percentage of cervical cancer-related death reduction “20%”; screening location “county”; screening interval “every three years”; moderate screening pain; waiting time for screening results “3 months – 6 months”; out-of-pocket cost “300 CNY”.