Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 5/2017

01-06-2017 | Original Paper

The effects of organized screening programs on the demand for mammography in Switzerland

Author: Mark Pletscher

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

The objective of this study is to estimate the causal effect of organized mammography screening programs on the proportion of women between 50 and 69 years of age who have ever used mammography. We exploit the gradual implementation of organized screening programs in nine Swiss cantons using a difference-in-difference approach. An analysis of four waves of the Swiss Health Survey shows that 3.5–5.4% points of the 87.9% utilization rate in cantons with screening programs in 2012 can be attributed to these organized programs. This effect indicates that organized programs can motivate women who have never done mammography to initiate screening.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The duration of the organized programs cannot be used as an explanatory variable in this specification because it would be highly collinear with \(g_{i}t_{i}\).
 
2
In the survey waves of the years 1997, 2002 and 2007, children were defined as household members below the age of 15 years. In the 2012 wave, this definition was changed to household members below the age of 14 years.
 
Literature
1.
2.
Walters, S., Maringe, C., Butler, J., Rachet, B., Barrett-Lee, P., Bergh, J., Boyages, J., Christiansen, P., Lee, M., Warnberg, F., Allemani, C., Engholm, G., Fornander, T., Gjerstorff, M.L., Johannesen, T.B., Lawrence, G., McGahan, C.E., Middleton, R., Steward, J., Tracey, E., Turner, D., Richards, M.A., Coleman, M.P.: Breast cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK, 2000–2007: a population-based study. Br. J. Cancer, 108(5), 1195–1208. ISSN 0007-0920 (2013)
3.
Perry, N., Broeders, M., De Wolf, C., Törnberg, S., Holland, R., Von Karsa, L.: European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Ann. Oncol. 19(4), 614–622 (2008)CrossRefPubMed
4.
Gøtzsche, P.C., Jørgensen, K.J.: Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6(6), (2013)
5.
6.
Hendrick, R.E., Helvie, M.A.: Mammography screening: a new estimate of number needed to screen to prevent one breast cancer death. Am. J. Roentgenol. 198(3), 723–728 (2012)CrossRef
7.
Gram, I.T., Slenker, S.E.: Cancer anxiety and attitudes toward mammography among screening attenders, nonattenders, and women never invited. Am. J. Public Health 82(2), 249–251 (1992)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Lerman, C., Track, B., Rimer, B.K., Boyce, A., Jepson, C., Engstrom, P.F.: Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann. Intern. Med. 114(8), 657–661 (1991)CrossRefPubMed
9.
Jørgensen, K.J., Gøtzsche, P.C.: Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ 339, ISSN 0959-8138. doi:10.​1136/​bmj.​b2587 (2009)
10.
Robertson, C., Ragupathy, S.K.A., Boachie, C., Fraser, C., Heys, S.D., MacLennan, G., Mowatt, G., Thomas, R.E., Gilbert, F.J.: Surveillance mammography for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer: a systematic review. Eur. Radiol. 21(12), 2484–2491 (2011)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Elmore, J.G., Barton, M.B., Moceri, V.M., Polk, S., Arena, P.J., Fletcher, S.W.: Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N. Engl. J. Med. 338(16), 1089–1096 (1998)CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Schueler, K.M., Chu, P.W., Smith-Bindman, R.: Factors associated with mammography utilization: a systematic quantitative review of the literature. J. Women’s Health 17(9), 1477–1498 (2008)CrossRef
14.
Wübker, A.: Who gets a mammogram amongst European women aged 50–69 years? Health Econ. Rev. 2(1), 6 (2012)CrossRef
15.
Euler-Chelpin, Mv, Olsen, A.H., Njor, S., Vejborg, I., Schwartz, W., Lynge, E.: Socio-demographic determinants of participation in mammography screening. Int. J. Cancer 122(2), 418–423 (2008)CrossRef
16.
Bouckaert, N., Schokkaert, E.: Differing types of medical prevention appeal to different individuals. Eur. J.f Health Econ. 17(3), 317–337 (2016)CrossRef
17.
Wübker, A.: Explaining variations in breast cancer screening across European countries. Eur. J. Health Econ. 15(5), 497–514 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
18.
Lacruz, A.I.G., Lacruz, M.G., Gorgemans, S.: Female preventive practices: breast and smear tests. Health policy 118(1), 135–144 (2014)CrossRef
19.
Carrieri, V., Wübker, A.: Does the letter matter (and for everyone)?. Quasi-experimental evidence on the effects of home invitation on mammography uptake. Ruhr Economic Paper 491 (2014)
20.
Sabik, L.M., Bradley, C.J.: The impact of near-universal insurance coverage on breast and cervical cancer screening: evidence from Massachusetts. Health Econ. 25(4), (2016)
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Ess, S., Savidan, A., Frick, H., Rageth, C., Vlastos, G., Lütolf, U., Thürlimann, B.: Geographic variation in breast cancer care in Switzerland. Cancer Epidemiol. 34(2), 116–121 (2010)CrossRefPubMed
27.
Fisch, T., Pury, P., Probst, N., Bordoni, A., Bouchardy, C., Frick, H., Jundt, G., De Weck, D., Perret, E., Lutz, J.M.: Variation in survival after diagnosis of breast cancer in Switzerland. Ann. Oncol. 16(12), 1882–1888 (2005)CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
30.
31.
Crivelli, L., Filippini, M., Mosca, I.: Federalism and regional health care expenditures: an empirical analysis for the swiss cantons. Health Econ. 15(5), 535–541 (2006)CrossRefPubMed
32.
Reich, O., Weins, C., Schusterschitz, C., Thöni, M.: Exploring the disparities of regional health care expenditures in Switzerland: some empirical evidence. Eur. J. Health Econ. 13(2), 193–202 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
33.
State Council of the Canton of Basel-Stadt: Mammography screening programme in the canton of Basel-Stadt. Cantonal Council Decree, 12.0782.01(25. September) (2012)
34.
35.
36.
Mullahy, J.: Much ado about two: reconsidering retransformation and the two-part model in health economics. National Bureau of Economic Resesarch, Working Paper (0228) (1998)
37.
Lechner, M.: The estimation of causal effects by difference-in-difference methods. University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-28, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen (2010)
38.
Horrace, W.C., Oaxaca, R.L.: Results on the bias and inconsistency of ordinary least squares for the linear probability model. Econ. Lett. 90(3), 321–327 (2006)CrossRef
39.
Ai, C., Norton, E.C.: Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Econ. Lett. 80(1), 123–129 (2003)CrossRef
40.
Puhani, P.A.: The treatment effect, the cross difference, and the interaction term in nonlinear difference-in-differences models. Econ. Lett. 115(1), 85–87 (2012)CrossRef
41.
Neyman, J., Scott, E.L.: Consistent estimates based on partially consistent observations. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 1–32 (1948)
42.
Heckman, J.J.: The incidental parameters problem and the problem of initial conditions in estimating a discrete time-discrete data stochastic process. In: Manski, C., McFadden, D. (eds.) Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, chap. 4, pp. 179–195. MIT Press, Cambridge (1981)
43.
44.
Katz, E.: Bias in conditional and unconditional fixed effects logit estimation. Political Anal. 9(4), 379–384 (2001)CrossRef
45.
Puddu, M., Demarest, S., Tafforeau, J.: Does a national screening programme reduce socioeconomic inequalities in mammography use? Int. J. Public Health 54(2), 61–68 (2009)CrossRefPubMed
46.
47.
48.
Hagenaars, A., de Vos, K., Zaidi, M.A.: Poverty Statistics in the Late 1980s: Research Based on Micro-Data. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
49.
50.
Pregibon, D.: Goodness of link tests for generalized linear models. Appl. Stat. 29(1), 15–24 (1980)CrossRef
51.
Ramsey, J.B.: Tests for specification errors in classical linear least-squares regression analysis. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 31(2), 350–371 (1969)
52.
Hosmer Jr, D.W., Lemeshow, S.: Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd edn. Wiley (2004). ISBN:978-0471356325
Metadata
Title
The effects of organized screening programs on the demand for mammography in Switzerland
Author
Mark Pletscher
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0845-7

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

The European Journal of Health Economics 5/2017 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Impact assessment of a pay-for-performance program on breast cancer screening in France using micro data

Original Paper

Measuring the efficiency of large pharmaceutical companies: an industry analysis

Original Paper

The dynamic relationship between health expenditure and economic growth: is the health-led growth hypothesis valid for Turkey?

Editorial

Access, use, and challenges of claims data analyses in Germany

Original Paper

Measuring the productivity of residential long-term care in England: methods for quality adjustment and regional comparison

Original Paper

Societal costs of fetal alcohol syndrome in Sweden