Cargando…

Men’s willingness to pay for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to review studies on willingness to pay (WTP) for prostate cancer screening. METHODS: This systematic-review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. By searching six-health-database, WTP studies on prostate cancer screening...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Farabi, Hiro, Rezapour, Aziz, Moradi, Najmeh, Aghamir, Seyed Mohammad Kazem, Koohpayehzadeh, Jalil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7727201/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33298175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01522-3
_version_ 1783621053323411456
author Farabi, Hiro
Rezapour, Aziz
Moradi, Najmeh
Aghamir, Seyed Mohammad Kazem
Koohpayehzadeh, Jalil
author_facet Farabi, Hiro
Rezapour, Aziz
Moradi, Najmeh
Aghamir, Seyed Mohammad Kazem
Koohpayehzadeh, Jalil
author_sort Farabi, Hiro
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study aimed to review studies on willingness to pay (WTP) for prostate cancer screening. METHODS: This systematic-review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. By searching six-health-database, WTP studies on prostate cancer screening using contingent valuation method published in English until March 2020 were included and those with unavailable full-text and inadequate quality-assessment scores were excluded. Smith checklist was used for the quality assessment. Extracted WTPs were converted to US dollar in 2018 using exchange rate parity and net present value formula to make comparison. Factors’ effect was assessed by vote counting. RESULTS: Six final studies published after 2006 reported above 70% Smith checklist items needed to be considered in contingent valuation study reports. Seven factors have positive effects on WTP. The reported WTP value varied from 11$ to 588$ in Japan and Germany, respectively. CONCLUSION: WTP for prostate cancer screening was positive among all studied men. The results of factors’ effect assessment showed that better understanding prostate cancer risks or screening tests and factors such as age, income, family history of cancer, hospitalization history, and educational level have positive effects. Moreover, prostate-specific antigen history, health insurance, employment, and subject’s health assessment received less attention. The results’ generalization to all countries is not applicable because there are no studies for low- and middle-income countries. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020172789 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-020-01522-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7727201
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77272012020-12-11 Men’s willingness to pay for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review Farabi, Hiro Rezapour, Aziz Moradi, Najmeh Aghamir, Seyed Mohammad Kazem Koohpayehzadeh, Jalil Syst Rev Systematic Review Update BACKGROUND: This study aimed to review studies on willingness to pay (WTP) for prostate cancer screening. METHODS: This systematic-review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. By searching six-health-database, WTP studies on prostate cancer screening using contingent valuation method published in English until March 2020 were included and those with unavailable full-text and inadequate quality-assessment scores were excluded. Smith checklist was used for the quality assessment. Extracted WTPs were converted to US dollar in 2018 using exchange rate parity and net present value formula to make comparison. Factors’ effect was assessed by vote counting. RESULTS: Six final studies published after 2006 reported above 70% Smith checklist items needed to be considered in contingent valuation study reports. Seven factors have positive effects on WTP. The reported WTP value varied from 11$ to 588$ in Japan and Germany, respectively. CONCLUSION: WTP for prostate cancer screening was positive among all studied men. The results of factors’ effect assessment showed that better understanding prostate cancer risks or screening tests and factors such as age, income, family history of cancer, hospitalization history, and educational level have positive effects. Moreover, prostate-specific antigen history, health insurance, employment, and subject’s health assessment received less attention. The results’ generalization to all countries is not applicable because there are no studies for low- and middle-income countries. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020172789 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-020-01522-3. BioMed Central 2020-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7727201/ /pubmed/33298175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01522-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Systematic Review Update
Farabi, Hiro
Rezapour, Aziz
Moradi, Najmeh
Aghamir, Seyed Mohammad Kazem
Koohpayehzadeh, Jalil
Men’s willingness to pay for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review
title Men’s willingness to pay for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review
title_full Men’s willingness to pay for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review
title_fullStr Men’s willingness to pay for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Men’s willingness to pay for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review
title_short Men’s willingness to pay for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review
title_sort men’s willingness to pay for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review Update
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7727201/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33298175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01522-3
work_keys_str_mv AT farabihiro menswillingnesstopayforprostatecancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT rezapouraziz menswillingnesstopayforprostatecancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT moradinajmeh menswillingnesstopayforprostatecancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT aghamirseyedmohammadkazem menswillingnesstopayforprostatecancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT koohpayehzadehjalil menswillingnesstopayforprostatecancerscreeningasystematicreview