Willingness to Pay for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Effect of Copayment in Southern Thailand
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The incidence rate of colorectal cancer in Thailand is increasing. Hence, the nationwide screening programme with copayment is being considered. There are two proposed screening alternatives: annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and once-in-10-year colonoscopy. A copayment for FIT is 60 Thai baht (THB) per test (≈ 1.7 USD); a copayment for colonoscopy is 2,300 THB per test (≈ 65.5 USD). Methods: The willingness to pay (WTP) technique, which is theoretically founded on a cost-benefit analysis, was used to assess an effect of copayment on the uptake. Subjects were patients aged 50-69 years without cancer or screening experience. WTP for the proposed tests was elicited. Results: Nearly two thirds of subjects were willing to pay for FIT. Less than half of subjects were willing to pay for colonoscopy. Among them, median WTP for both tests was greater than the proposed copayments. In a probit model, knowing CRC patient and presence of companion were associated with non-zero WTP for FIT. Presence of companion, female, and family history of cancer were associated with non-zero WTP for colonoscopy. After adjustment for starting price in the linear model, marital status, drinking behavior, and risk attitude were associated with WTP. None of factors was significant for colonoscopy. Uptake decreased as levels of copayment increased. At proposed copayments, the uptake rates of 59.8% and 21.6% were estimated for colonoscopy and FIT respectively. The demand for FIT was price inelastic; the demand for colonoscopy was price elastic. Estimates of optimal copayment were 62.1 THB for FIT and 460.2 THB for colonoscopy. At the optimal copayment, uptake rates would be 59.8% for FIT and 42.3% for colonoscopy.Conclusion(s): More subjects were willing to pay for FIT than for colonoscopy (59.0% versus 46.5%). The estimated uptake rates were 59.8% and 21.6% for colonoscopy and FIT at the proposed copayments.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».