ArticleJournal of translational medicine2025
Women's preferences for testing to predict breast cancer risk - a discrete choice experiment.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Public Preferences for Emerging Cancer Screening Modalities: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Women's preferences for breast cancer risk-reducing medications: a discrete choice experiment study.NPJ breast cancer · 2026Article
- Harnessing health economic evaluation for policy and practice.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Breast Cancer Screening Knowledge and Sentiments in Singaporean Women: Mixed Methods Study Using Topic Modeling, Sentiment Analysis, and Structured Questionnaire Data.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Calculating willingness-to-pay with discrete cost and random coefficients in discrete choice experiments.Health economics review · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundRisk-based breast cancer screening offers a more targeted and potentially cost-effective approach in cancer detection compared to age-based screening. This study aims to understand women's preferences and willingness for undergoing risk assessment tests.
methodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted. Six attributes were selected to construct the DCE questionnaire: one-time cost of the test, methods for reducing late-stage breast cancer, annual breast cancer screening expenses, insurance coverage for early-stage breast cancer, family risk correlation, and risk communication methods. Women aged between 21 and 59 were recruited from Singapore. Latent class analysis was performed.
resultsThree hundred twenty-eight women were included in the analysis and classified into two classes: test supporters and non-supporters. Both classes prioritised test costs and screening costs. Among non-cost attributes, the potential to reduce late-stage breast cancer diagnosis was the most influential factor. Insurance coverage increased willingness to undergo testing. Risk communication methods were not significant in influencing the decision of undergoing tests. Non-supporters were less inclined to take the test if family risk correlation was high. Younger women, married women, full-time employees, and those with a history of breast disease were more likely to be supporters. Women with a family history of breast cancer were more likely to be non-supporters.
conclusionsFinancial incentives play a notable role in increasing the uptake of risk-prediction tests. However, the programme's success depends on understanding and addressing the diverse preferences of women. While cost considerations ranked highly, additional strategies are needed to engage groups that are hesitant, particularly those with a high family risk correlation.
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.