Richard Norman1, Rachael Moorin2, Suzy Maxwell3, Suzanne Robinson3, Fraser Brims4. 1. School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. Electronic address: richard.norman@curtin.edu.au. 2. School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. 3. School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. 4. Curtin Medical School, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To measure Australian population preferences for lung cancer screening and to explore whether these preferences are related to respondent characteristics and lung cancer risk. METHODS: An online ranking task was administered to a sample of 521 Australians between the ages of 50 and 80 with a history of cigarette smoking. Choice sets contained 2 alternative lungs screens and an opt-out, and respondents were asked to rank the 3 options. Both conditional logit and mixed logit analyses were conducted exploring both the forced choice between the 2 screens and identifying the types of respondent most likely to opt out of any screening. For this, respondent 6-year lung cancer risk was estimated and used as a covariate. RESULTS: Respondents valued tests that involved breath or blood tests in addition to computerized tomography (CT), locations that were close to home, receiving results quickly, and minimizing radiation from the CT scan. Willingness to pay differed between relatively higher and lower risk individuals; higher risk individuals placed greater emphasis on convenience, result timeliness, and radiation. Respondent characteristics that predicted opting out of any screening included being male, fewer years of smoking, and not having a previous cancer diagnosis. Lung cancer risk did not influence the likelihood of opting out. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of lung cancer screening is likely to be changeable if different modalities of screening are provided, with effects likely differing across population subgroups.
OBJECTIVES: To measure Australian population preferences for lung cancer screening and to explore whether these preferences are related to respondent characteristics and lung cancer risk. METHODS: An online ranking task was administered to a sample of 521 Australians between the ages of 50 and 80 with a history of cigarette smoking. Choice sets contained 2 alternative lungs screens and an opt-out, and respondents were asked to rank the 3 options. Both conditional logit and mixed logit analyses were conducted exploring both the forced choice between the 2 screens and identifying the types of respondent most likely to opt out of any screening. For this, respondent 6-year lung cancer risk was estimated and used as a covariate. RESULTS: Respondents valued tests that involved breath or blood tests in addition to computerized tomography (CT), locations that were close to home, receiving results quickly, and minimizing radiation from the CT scan. Willingness to pay differed between relatively higher and lower risk individuals; higher risk individuals placed greater emphasis on convenience, result timeliness, and radiation. Respondent characteristics that predicted opting out of any screening included being male, fewer years of smoking, and not having a previous cancer diagnosis. Lung cancer risk did not influence the likelihood of opting out. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of lung cancer screening is likely to be changeable if different modalities of screening are provided, with effects likely differing across population subgroups.
Authors: Kate L A Dunlop; Henry M Marshall; Emily Stone; Ashleigh R Sharman; Rachael H Dodd; Joel J Rhee; Sue McCullough; Nicole M Rankin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Dong Dong; Richard Huan Xu; Eliza Lai-Yi Wong; Chi-Tim Hung; Da Feng; Zhanchun Feng; Eng-Kiong Yeoh; Samuel Yeung-Shan Wong Journal: Health Expect Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 3.377