Women's preferences for cervical cancer screening: A study using a discrete choice experiment

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 344-350

  Wordsworth, Sarah ^a   Ryan, Mandy ^b   Skåtun, Diane ^b   Waugh, Norman ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervical screening; Choice; Preferences

Indexed keywords

CYTOLOGY; HEALTH CARE; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PUBLIC POLICY; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING; THROUGHPUT;

ALTERNATIVE SCREENING PROGRAMS; CERVICAL SCREENING; CERVICAL SMEARS; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY;

TUMORS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; POSTAL MAIL; QUESTIONNAIRE; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 33749117559     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462306051245     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Bradley M. User's manual for SPEED version 2.1 stated preference experiment editor and designer. The Hague: Hague Consulting Group; 1991.
2. Franco E. Are we ready for a paradigm change in cervical cancer screening? Lancet. 2003:362:1866-1867.
3. General Register Office for Scotland 2005. Available at: http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/.
4. Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. Technology Appraisal 69. UK: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; October 2003.
5. Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: An updated rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2004;20:1-78.
6. Moss SM, Gray A, Legood R, Henstock E. Evaluation of HPV/LBC Cervical Screening Pilot Studies. First report to the Department of Health on evaluation of LBC; October 2004.
7. Pearmain D, Swanson J, Kroes E, Bradley M. Stated preference techniques: A guide to practice. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Steer Davis Gleave, Hague Consulting Group; 1991.
8. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care: Current practice and future prospects. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2:55-64.
9. Ryan M; Skåtun D. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ. 2004;13:397-402.
10. Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J. Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: Evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:88-93.
11. Steering group report on the feasibility of introducing liquid based cytology. Scottish Cervical Screening Programme; January 2002.
12. The OCCURS Group. Computerisation of screening for cervical cancer. Health Bull (Edinb). 1988;46:146-152.
13. Wordsworth S, Scott A. Ultrasound scanning by general practitioners: Is it worthwhile? J Public Health Med. 2002;24:88-94.
14. Wordsworth S, Skatun D, Scott A, French F. Preferences for general practice jobs: A survey of principals and sessional GPs. Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54:740-746.
15. Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld W. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. Durham, NC: Fuqua School of Business, Duke University; 1996.