ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2025
Australian Preferences for Prenatal Screening: A Discrete Choice Experiment Comparing Metropolitan and Rural/Regional Areas.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Health Economics of Genomic Technologies: A Growing Evidence Base on Value.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): A Paradigm Shift in Prenatal Care.International journal of preventive medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-invasive prenatal testing has the potential to be a useful genetic screening tool in Australia. However, concerns have been raised about its cost, commercial provision, the psychological impacts of the screening process, and disparities in access experienced by rural and regional communities.
aimsThe aims of this study are (1) to estimate Australian preferences for features of prenatal screening; (2) to explore potential variations in preferences between metropolitan and rural/regional communities; (3) to estimate the extent to which respondents are willing to trade-off between attributes, using willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to wait estimates.
methodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 12 choice tasks. The DCE recruited participants from metropolitan (n = 160) and rural/regional (n = 168) locations across Australia. Mixed logit and latent class analyses were conducted and WTP and willingness to wait were calculated.
resultsBoth metropolitan and rural/regional preferences were significantly impacted by the false-positive rate, false-negative rate, and cost. In addition, rural preferences were significantly impacted by the scope of the conditions covered, the inconclusive rate, and wait times. The number of screening tests and revealing the sex of the foetus were not significant within either group. Willingness to pay estimates ranged from AU$13 to avoid a test with a 1% increase in the false-positive rate to AU$323 to screen for a wide range of conditions.
conclusionsThis study highlights the importance of considering differing preferences between rural and metropolitan populations when delivering prenatal screening. Further, this study provides Australian-specific WTP estimates to be incorporated into economic evaluations.
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.