↓ Skip to main content

Using willingness-to-pay to establish patient preferences for cancer testing in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using willingness-to-pay to establish patient preferences for cancer testing in primary care
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0345-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra Hollinghurst, Jonathan Banks, Lin Bigwood, Fiona M. Walter, Willie Hamilton, Tim J. Peters

Abstract

Shared decision making is a stated aim of several healthcare systems. In the area of cancer, patients' views have informed policy on screening and treatment but there is little information about their views on diagnostic testing in relation to symptom severity. We used the technique of willingness-to-pay to determine public preferences around diagnostic testing for colorectal, lung, and pancreatic cancer in primary care in the UK. Participants were approached in general practice waiting rooms and asked to complete a two-stage electronic survey that described symptoms of cancer, the likelihood that the symptoms indicate cancer, and information about the appropriate diagnostic test. Part 1 asked for a binary response (yes/no) as to whether they would choose to have a test if it were offered. Part 2 elicited willingness-to-pay values of the tests using a payment scale followed by a bidding exercise, with the aim that these values would provide a strength of preference not detectable using the binary approach. A large majority of participants chose to be tested for all cancers, with only colonoscopy (colorectal cancer) demonstrating a risk gradient. In the willingness-to-pay exercise participants placed a lower value on an X-ray (lung cancer) than the tests for colorectal or pancreatic cancer and X-ray was the only test where risk was clearly related to the willingness-to-pay value. Willingness-to-pay values did not enhance the binary responses in the way intended; participants appeared to be motivated differently when responding to the two parts of the questionnaire. More work is needed to understand how participants perceive risk in this context and how they respond to questions about willingness-to-pay. Qualitative methods could provide useful insights.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Lecturer 3 4%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 27 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,159,537
of 24,383,935 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#963
of 2,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,001
of 369,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#26
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,383,935 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.