ArticleCancers2021
Preferred Lung Cancer Screening Modalities in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Public Preferences for Emerging Cancer Screening Modalities: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical screening · 2023Pooled it
- Decoding patient preferences: key drivers in selecting thyroid cancer surgery- a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Trial
- Maximising Participation in the Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Eligible, High-Risk Individuals.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2026Article
- The needs and expectations of people eligible for lung cancer screening in Switzerland: A mixed method study.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- A cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography and a polygenic risk score.BMC cancer · 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
- Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2023Article
- Public Preference Heterogeneity and Predicted Uptake Rate of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Screening Programs in Rural China: Discrete Choice Experiments and Latent Class Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Why is the screening rate in lung cancer still low? A seven-country analysis of the factors affecting adoption.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Low-Dose Computed Tomography With a Plasma-Based Biomarker for Lung Cancer Screening in China.JAMA network open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to identify preferred lung cancer screening modalities in a Chinese population and predict uptake rates of different modalities. A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was administered to 392 Chinese individuals aged 50-74 years who were at high risk for lung cancer. Each choice set had two lung screening options and an option to opt-out, and respondents were asked to choose the most preferred one. Both mixed logit analysis and stepwise logistic analysis were conducted to explore whether preferences were related to respondent characteristics and identify which kinds of respondents were more likely to opt out of any screening. On mixed logit analysis, attributes that were predictive of choice at 1% level of statistical significance included the screening interval, screening venue, and out-of-pocket costs. The preferred screening modality seemed to be screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) + blood test once a year in a general hospital at a cost of RMB 50; this could increase the uptake rate by 0.40 compared to the baseline setting. On stepwise logistic regression, those with no endowment insurance were more likely to opt out; those who were older and housewives/househusbands, and those with a health check habit and with commercial endowment insurance were less likely to opt out from a screening programme. There was considerable variance between real risk and self-perceived risk of lung cancer among respondents. Lung cancer screening uptake can be increased by offering various screening modalities, so as to help policymakers further design the screening modality.
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.