Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27503337›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2016

Using willingness-to-pay to establish patient preferences for cancer testing in primary care.

Sandra Hollinghurst, Jonathan Banks, Lin Bigwood, Fiona M Walter, Willie Hamilton, Tim J Peters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Factors affecting the decision to investigate older adults with potential cancer symptoms: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk: Is the Community Willing to Pay for It?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  10. Musings on Patient Willingness to Pay.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sandra HollinghurstSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. s.p.hollinghurst@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0782-3117
Jonathan BanksSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Lin BigwoodSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Fiona M WalterDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Willie HamiltonUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Tim J PetersSchool of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0608-10045
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision making is a stated aim of several healthcare systems. In the area of cancer, patients' views have informed policy on screening and treatment but there is little information about their views on diagnostic testing in relation to symptom severity.

methodsWe used the technique of willingness-to-pay to determine public preferences around diagnostic testing for colorectal, lung, and pancreatic cancer in primary care in the UK. Participants were approached in general practice waiting rooms and asked to complete a two-stage electronic survey that described symptoms of cancer, the likelihood that the symptoms indicate cancer, and information about the appropriate diagnostic test. Part 1 asked for a binary response (yes/no) as to whether they would choose to have a test if it were offered. Part 2 elicited willingness-to-pay values of the tests using a payment scale followed by a bidding exercise, with the aim that these values would provide a strength of preference not detectable using the binary approach.

resultsA large majority of participants chose to be tested for all cancers, with only colonoscopy (colorectal cancer) demonstrating a risk gradient. In the willingness-to-pay exercise participants placed a lower value on an X-ray (lung cancer) than the tests for colorectal or pancreatic cancer and X-ray was the only test where risk was clearly related to the willingness-to-pay value.

conclusionWillingness-to-pay values did not enhance the binary responses in the way intended; participants appeared to be motivated differently when responding to the two parts of the questionnaire. More work is needed to understand how participants perceive risk in this context and how they respond to questions about willingness-to-pay. Qualitative methods could provide useful insights.

Indexed as

AdultAgedColorectal NeoplasmsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic NeoplasmsPatient PreferencePrimary Health CareCancerDiagnostic testsPrimary health careWillingness-to-pay

Identifiers

PMID27503337
PMCPMC4977833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.