Individual decision making in relation to participation in cardiovascular screening: A study of revealed and stated preferences

Scandinavian Journal of Public Health

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 43-50

  Søgaard, Rikke ^a   Lindholt, Jes ^b   Gyrd Hansen, Dorte ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b VIBORG HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular disease; contingent valuation; decision making; information; patient preferences; randomised controlled trial; screening; willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; MALE; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICS; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

AGED; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84872965232     PISSN: 14034948     EISSN: 16511905     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1403494812468519     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Koopmanschap M.A. van Oortmarssen G.J. van Agt H.M. et al. Cervical-cancer screening: attendance and cost-effectiveness. Int J Cancer 1990;45:410–5.
2. Stirbu I. Kunst A. Mielck A. et al. Educational inequalities in utilization of preventive services among elderly in Europe. Tackling health inequalities europe: an integrated approach – EUROTHINE. Rotterdam: Erasmus MC, 2007. pp.483–99.
3. Aas E. Pecuniary compensation increases participation in screening for colorectal cancer. Health Econ 2009;18:337–54.
4. Senore C. Armaroli P. Silvani M. et al. Comparing different strategies for colorectal cancer screening in Italy: predictors of patients’ participation. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:188–98.
5. van Rijn A.F. van Rossum L.G. Deutekom M. et al. Low priority main reason not to participate in a colorectal cancer screening program with a faecal occult blood test. J Public Health 2008;30:461–5.
6. Bryan S. Buxton M. McKenna M. et al. Private costs associated with abdominal aortic aneurysm screening: the importance of private travel and time costs. J Med Screen 1995;2:62–66.
7. Neumann J. Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944.
8. Sassi F. McDaid D. Ricciardi W. Conjoint analysis of preferences for cardiac risk assessment in primary care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:211–18.
9. Donaldson C. Shackley P. Abdalla M. et al. Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Econ 1995;4:439–52.
10. Jonas D.E. Russell L.B. Chou J. et al. Willingness-to-pay to avoid the time spent and discomfort associated with screening colonoscopy. Health Econ 2010;19:1193–211.
11. Pedersen L.B. Gyrd-Hansen D. Kjaer T. The influence of information and private versus public provision on preferences for screening for prostate cancer: a willingness-to-pay study. Health Policy 2011;101:277–89.
12. Grondal N. Sogaard R. Henneberg E.W. et al. The Viborg Vascular (VIVA) screening trial of 65–74 year old men in the central region of Denmark: study protocol. Trials 2010;11:67.
13. Sassi F. Hurst J. The prevention of lifestyle-related chronic diseases: an economic framework. Paris: Directorate for employment, labour and social affairs, OECD, 2008.
14. Osterlie W. Solbjor M. Skolbekken J.A. et al. Challenges of informed choice in organised screening. J Med Ethics 2008;34:e5.
15. Jorgensen K.J. Brodersen J. Hartling O.J. et al. Informed choice requires information about both benefits and harms. J Med Ethics 2009;35:268–9.
16. Camerer C. Issacharoff S. Loewenstein G. et al. Regulation for conservatives: behavioral economics and the case for ‘asymmetric paternalism’. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2003;151:1211–1254.
17. Glaeser E. Paternalism and psychology. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2005.