Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31675357›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Population preferences for breast cancer screening policies: Discrete choice experiment in Belarus.

Olena Mandrik, Alesya Yaumenenka, Rolando Herrero, Marcel F Jonker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors.

Olena MandrikSection of Early Detection and Prevention, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3755-3031
Alesya YaumenenkaN.N. Alexandrov National Cancer Center of Belarus, Cancer control department, N.N. Alexandrov National Cancer Centre of Belarus, Liasny, Belarus.
Rolando HerreroSection of Early Detection and Prevention, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Marcel F JonkerDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, United States of America.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReaching an acceptable participation rate in screening programs is challenging. With the objective of supporting the Belarus government to implement mammography screening as a single intervention, we analyse the main determinants of breast cancer screening participation.

methodsWe developed a discrete choice experiment using a mixed research approach, comprising a literature review, in-depth interviews with key informants (n = 23), "think aloud" pilots (n = 10) and quantitative measurement of stated preferences for a representative sample of Belarus women (n = 428, 89% response rate). The choice data were analysed using a latent class logit model with four classes selected based on statistical (consistent Akaike information criterion) and interpretational considerations.

resultsWomen in the sample were representative of all six geographic regions, mainly urban (81%), and high-education (31%) characteristics. Preferences of women in all four classes were primarily influenced by the perceived reliability of the test (sensitivity and screening method) and costs. Travel and waiting time were important components in the decision for 34% of women. Most women in Belarus preferred mammography screening to the existing clinical breast examination (90%). However, if the national screening program is restricted in capacity, this proportion of women will drop to 55%. Women in all four classes preferred combined screening (mammography with clinical breast examination) to single mammography. While this preference was stronger if lower test sensitivity was assumed, 28% of women consistently gave more importance to combined screening than to test sensitivity.

conclusionWomen in Belarus were favourable to mammography screening. Population should be informed that there are no benefits of combined screening compared to single mammography. The results of this study are directly relevant to policy makers and help them targeting the screening population.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPatient PreferenceAgedBreast NeoplasmsChoice BehaviorEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedPhysical ExaminationRepublic of Belarus

Identifiers

PMID31675357
PMCPMC6824571

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.