SynthesisPreventing chronic disease2016
Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990-2013.
Synthesis in Preventing chronic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Screening for potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care: Canadian guideline.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026Guideline
- Public Preferences for Emerging Cancer Screening Modalities: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analyses in Health Screening Programs for Type 2 Diabetes and Liver Disease: A Scoping Review.Canadian liver journal · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing women's stated preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Pooled it
- Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Preferences for aspects of antenatal and newborn screening: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Patients' Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2017Pooled it
- Patient Perceptions on the Follow-Up of Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Trial
- Comparative effectiveness of two interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening among females living in the rural Midwest.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2024Trial
- Preferences for interventions designed to increase cervical screening uptake in non-attending young women: How findings from a discrete choice experiment compare with observed behaviours in a trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Trial
- Monetary Risk Preferences and Demand for Preventative Treatment: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Individuals at High Risk for Lung Cancer.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Solid reasons to equitably screen.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2025Article
- Patient preferences for investigating cancer-related symptoms in Australian general practice: a discrete-choice experiment.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Public Heterogeneous Preferences for Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Service Delivery in Western China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStated-preference methods provide a systematic approach to quantitatively assess the relative preferences for features of cancer screening tests. We reviewed stated-preference studies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening to identify the types of attributes included, the use of questions to assess uptake, and whether gaps exist in these areas. The goal of our review is to inform research on the design and promotion of public health programs to increase cancer screening.
methodsUsing the PubMed and EconLit databases, we identified studies published in English from January 1990 through July 2013 that measured preferences for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test attributes using conjoint analysis or a discrete-choice experiment. We extracted data on study characteristics and results. We categorized studies by whether attributes evaluated included screening test, health care delivery characteristics, or both.
resultsTwenty-two studies met the search criteria. Colorectal cancer was the most commonly studied cancer of the 3. Fifteen studies examined only screening test attributes (efficacy, process, test characteristics, and cost). Two studies included only health care delivery attributes (information provided, staff characteristics, waiting time, and distance to facility). Five studies examined both screening test and health care delivery attributes. Overall, cancer screening test attributes had a significant effect on a patient's selection of a cancer screening test, and health care delivery attributes had mixed effects on choice.
conclusionA growing number of studies examine preferences for cancer screening tests. These studies consistently find that screening test attributes, such as efficacy, process, and cost, are significant determinants of choice. Fewer studies have examined the effect of health care delivery attributes on choice, and the results from these studies are mixed. There is a need for additional studies on the barriers to cancer screening uptake, including health care delivery attributes, and the effect of education materials on preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.