Costs and benefits of cervical screening IV: Valuation by women of the cervical screening programme

Cytopathology

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2001, Pages 367-376

  Wordsworth, Sarah ^a   Ryan, Mandy ^b   Waugh, Norman ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Benefits; Cervical screening; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCREENING; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SCOTLAND; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0035780118     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2001.00358.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
2. Waugh N, Robertson A. Costs and benefits of cervical screening. II. Is it worthwhile reducing the screening interval from 5 to 3 years? Cytopathology 1996; 7: 241-8.
3. Parkin DM, Moss SM. An evaluation of screening policies for cervical cancer in England and Wales using a computer simulation model; Journal of. Epid Comm Health 1986; 40: 143-53.
4. Charny MC, Farrow SC, Roberts CJ. The cost of saving a life through cervical cytology screening: Implications for health policy. Health Policy 1987; 7 (3): 345-59.
5. Austoker J. Gaining informed consent for screening. BMJ 1999; 319: 722-3.
6. Cockburn J, White VM, Hirst S, Hill D. Barriers to cervical screening in older women. Aust Family Physician 1992; 21: 973-8.
7. Crombie IK, Orbell S, Johnston G, Robertson AJ, Kenicer M. Women's experiences at cervical screening. Scottish Med J 1995; 40: 81-2.
8. Marteau T. Psychological costs of screening. BMJ 1989; 299: 527.
9. Ryan M. Establishing the Nature of the Patient's Utility Function: an Application to Assisted Reproductive Technique. PhD Thesis. University of Aberdeen; 1995.
10. Donaldson C. Theory and Practice of Willingness to Pay for Health Care. Health Economics Research Unit Discussion Paper no. 01/93. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen; 1993.
11. Grimes D. Value of a negative cervical smear. BMJ 1988; 296: 1363.
12. The OCCURS Group. Computerisation of screening for cervical cancer. Health Bull 1988; 46: 146-52.
13. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. Resources for the Future. Washington DC: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1989.
14. Smith RD. The discrete-choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics. Should we adopt environmental guidelines? Med Decision Making 2000; 20: 194-206.
15. Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M, Miedzybrodzka Z. Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Economics 1995; 4: 439-52.
16. Kidholm K, Langkilde LK. Interpretation of zero bids in contingent valuation surveys. Paper presented at the 15th Nordic Health Economists' Study Group Meeting in Reykyavick: August 1994.
17. Waugh N, Robertson A. Costs and benefits of cervical screening. I. The costs of the cervical screening programme. Cytopathology 1996; 7: 231-40.
18. Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M. Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited. Health Economics 1997; 6: 145-59.
19. Olsen JA, Donaldson C. Helicopters, hearts and hips: Using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programme. Social Sci Med 2000; 46: 1-12.
20. Bohm P. Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment. European Economic Rev 1972; 3: 111-30.
21. Posavac S. Strategic overbidding in contingent valuation: Stated economic value of public goods varies according to consumer's expectations of funding source. J Economic Psychol 1998; 19: 205-14.
22. Major K. Contingent Valuation for Maternity Services. Are we Willing to Accept it? BA Thesis. University of Strathclyde; 1994.
23. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel of contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993; 10: 4601-14.
24. Ryan M, San Miguel F. Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments. J Economic Psychol 2000; 21: 305-17.
25. Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care. Does 'ability to pay' preclude the use of 'willingness to pay'? Social Sci Med 999; 49: 551-63.
26. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to go beyond health outcomes: An application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med 1999; 8: 535-46.
27. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000; 320: 1530-3.