Women's Benefits and Harms Trade-Offs in Breast Cancer Screening: Results from a Discrete-Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND Over the past decade, the benefits and harms balance of breast cancer (BC) screening has been widely debated. OBJECTIVES To elicit women's trade-offs between the benefits and harms of BC screening and to analyze the main determinants of these trade-offs. METHODS A discrete-choice experiment with seven attributes depicting BC screening programs including varying levels of BC mortality, overdiagnosis, and false-positive result was used. Eight hundred twelve women aged 40 to 74 years with no personal history of BC recruited by a survey institute and representative of the French general population (age, socioeconomic level, and geographical location) completed the discrete-choice experiment. Preference heterogeneity was investigated using generalized multinomial logit models from which individual trade-offs were derived, and their main determinants were assessed using generalized linear models. Screening acceptance rates under various benefits and harms ratios were simulated on the basis of the distribution of individual preferences. RESULTS The women would be willing to accept on average 14.1 overdiagnosis cases (median = 9.6) and 47.8 false-positive results (median = 27.2) to avoid one BC-related death. After accounting for preference heterogeneity, less than 50% of women would be willing to accept 10 overdiagnosis cases for one BC-related death avoided. Screening acceptance rates were higher among women with higher socioeconomic level and lower among women with poor health. CONCLUSIONS Women are sensitive to both the benefits and the harms of BC screening and their preferences are highly heterogeneous. Our study provides useful results for public health authorities and clinicians willing to improve their recommendations of BC screening on the basis of women's preferences.

[1]  Denzil G. Fiebig,et al.  The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[2]  D. Gyrd-Hansen,et al.  Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. , 2001, Health economics.

[3]  R. Ancelle-Park,et al.  Do socio-demographic factors influence mammography use of French women? Analysis of a French cross-sectional survey , 2006, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[4]  L. Irwig,et al.  Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[5]  C. de Wolf,et al.  Mammographic Screening Programmes in Europe: Organization, Coverage and Participation , 2012, Journal of medical screening.

[6]  A. Hauber,et al.  Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990–2013 , 2016, Preventing chronic disease.

[7]  Sheana S Bull,et al.  Do Patient Preferences for Health Information Vary by Health Literacy or Numeracy? A Qualitative Assessment , 2012, Journal of health communication.

[8]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[9]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models , 2010 .

[10]  Arne Risa Hole,et al.  A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. , 2007, Health economics.

[11]  D. Street,et al.  The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods by STREET, D. J. and BURGESS, L. , 2007 .

[12]  Carmen L. Lewis,et al.  Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer in the elderly: a review of the evidence. , 2005, The American journal of medicine.

[13]  John M. Rose,et al.  Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models? , 2012 .

[14]  G. Mann,et al.  Men's preferences and trade‐offs for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment , 2015, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[15]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. , 2012, Health economics.

[16]  Kathryn A Phillips,et al.  How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. , 2009, Health economics.

[17]  Nancy L Keating,et al.  A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions. , 2014, JAMA.

[18]  C. Manski The structure of random utility models , 1977 .

[19]  Noel T Brewer,et al.  Systematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[21]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Designing a stated choice experiment: The value of a qualitative process , 2012 .

[22]  Stavros Petrou,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature , 2014, PharmacoEconomics.

[23]  D. Whynes,et al.  Why do women participate in the English cervical cancer screening programme? , 2007, Journal of health economics.

[24]  J. Sicsic,et al.  Obstacles to the uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings: what remains to be achieved by French national programmes? , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[25]  Bas Donkers,et al.  Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide , 2015, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[26]  P. Gøtzsche,et al.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[27]  Gillian D Sanders,et al.  Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. , 2015, JAMA.

[28]  Caroline Vass,et al.  The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments , 2017, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[29]  France Légaré,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[30]  Randy W. Elder,et al.  Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. , 2012, American journal of preventive medicine.

[31]  Vikki Entwistle,et al.  Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. , 2009, Health economics.

[32]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses , 1999 .

[33]  Denzil G Fiebig,et al.  What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. , 2006, Journal of health economics.

[34]  F. Johnson,et al.  Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. , 2007, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[35]  K. Train Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .

[36]  J. Martí,et al.  Strategies for increasing the participation of women in community breast cancer screening , 2001 .

[37]  Lyndal Trevena,et al.  A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[38]  Eugenio Paci,et al.  Summary of the Evidence of Breast Cancer Service Screening Outcomes in Europe and First Estimate of the Benefit and Harm Balance Sheet , 2012, Journal of medical screening.

[39]  E W Steyerberg,et al.  What determines individuals' preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. , 2010, European journal of cancer.

[40]  F Reed Johnson,et al.  Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. , 2009, Journal of health economics.

[41]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health care , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[42]  P. Gøtzsche,et al.  Are benefits and harms in mammography screening given equal attention in scientific articles? A cross-sectional study , 2007, BMC medicine.

[43]  H. Allemand,et al.  The French breast cancer screening programmeEpidemiological and economic results of the first round of screening , 1996 .

[44]  M. Ryan,et al.  Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. , 2004, Health economics.

[45]  F. Chauvin,et al.  Decision aid on breast cancer screening reduces attendance rate: results of a large-scale, randomized, controlled study by the DECIDEO group , 2016, Oncotarget.

[46]  Marian Shanahan,et al.  Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: A pilot study of breast screening participation , 2003 .

[47]  Clémence Bussière,et al.  Simultaneous effect of disabling conditions on primary health care use through a capability approach. , 2016, Social science & medicine.

[48]  J. Habbema,et al.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment , 2010, British Journal of Cancer.

[49]  J. Lortet-Tieulent,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. , 2015, JAMA.

[50]  P. Skaane,et al.  Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program , 2007, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[51]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space , 2005 .

[52]  Joanna Coast,et al.  Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. , 2012, Health economics.

[53]  D G Altman,et al.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[54]  S. Rubin,et al.  Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. , 1995, JAMA.