A review of studies examining stated preferences for cancer screening

Preventing Chronic Disease

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2006, Pages

  Phillips, Kathryn A ^a   Van Bebber, Stephanie ^a   Marshall, Deborah ^b   Walsh, Judith ^a   Thabane, Lehana ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84978417803     PISSN: 15451151     EISSN: 21665435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Phillips KA, Maddala T, Johnson FR. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002;37(6):1681-705.
2. Phillips KA, Johnson FR, Maddala T. Measuring what people value: a comparison of "attitude" and "preference" surveys. Health Serv Res 2002;37(6):1659-79.
3. Maddala T, Phillips KA, Reed Johnson F. An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences. Health Econ 2003;12(12):1035-47.
4. Gyrd-Hansen D, Sogaard J. Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Econ 2001;10(7):617-34.
5. Frew E, Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK. Willingness-to-pay for colorectal cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 2001;37(14):1746-51.
6. Gyrd-Hansen D. Cost-benefit analysis of mammography screening in Denmark based on discrete ranking data. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16(3):811-21.
7. Liang W, Lawrence WF, Burnett CB, Hwang YT, Freedman M, Trock BJ, et al. Acceptability of diagnostic tests for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003;79(2):199-206.
8. Salkeld G, Solomon M, Short L, Ryan M, Ward JE. Evidence-based consumer choice: a case study in colorectal cancer screening. Aust N Z J Public Health 2003;27(4):449-55.
9. Schiffner R, Wilde O, Schiffner-Rohe J, Stolz W. Difference between real and perceived power of dermoscopical methods for detection of malignant melanoma. Eur J Dermatol 2003;13(3):288-93.
10. Wagner TH, Hu T, Duenas GV, Kaplan CP, Nguyen BH, Pasick RJ. Does willingness to pay vary by race/ethnicity? An analysis using mammography among low-income women. Health Policy 2001;58(3):275-88.
11. Wordsworth S, Ryan M, Waugh N. Costs and benefits of cervical screening IV: valuation by women of the cervical screening programme. Cytopathology 2001;12(6):367-76.
12. Marshall D, Phillips K, Johnson FR, Marshall JK, Walsh J, Kulin NA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: conjoint analysis of consumer preferences and physicians' perceived consumer preferences in the US and Canada. Conference proceeding from the 27th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making. 2005 Oct 21-24; San Francisco, CA.
13. Klabunde CN, Riley GF, Mandelson MT, Frame PS, Brown ML. Health plan policies and programs for colorectal cancer screening: a national profile. Am J Manag Care 2004;10(4):273-9.
14. Corso PS, Hammitt JK, Graham JD, Dicker RC, Goldie SJ. Assessing preferences for prevention versus treatment using willingness to pay. Med Decis Making 2002;22(5 Suppl): S92-101.