Iranian Journal of Public Health 2017. 46(5):693-698.

A Comparative Study on Willingness to Pay for Breast Cancer and Osteoporosis Screening in Kerman, Southeastern Iran


Background: One of the economic evaluation techniques involves calculation of willingness to pay (WTP) for a service to find out the value of that service from the clients’ perspective. This study estimated WTP for both breast cancer and osteoporosis screening and comparatively examined the contributing factors. In fact, the comparisons served to provide an exact analysis of individual attitudes and behaviors in relation to screening programs for cancers and other diseases.

Methods: This study was first designed in six scenarios several questionnaires concerning individual breast cancer and osteoporosis screening cases, and determined the WTP median in each scenario between people in Kerman Province of Iran in 2016. Then, the demand function for breast cancer and osteoporosis screening was formulated. Moreover, the factors contributing to WTP were examined through various scenarios in Stata and econometric techniques.

Results: The median and mean values of WTP in all the above scenarios were greater for breast cancer screening than for osteoporosis screening. Theoretically, the price assumed a minus sign whereas risk assumed a plus sign within the demand function formulated for both screening programs. Regarding the evaluated factors, age in breast cancer screening and risk of disease in osteoporosis screening were the major factors contributing to WTP.

Conclusion: Breast cancer screening was more valuable than osteoporosis screening program from the perspective of the subjects. The programs can be successfully designed by concentrating on patients’ age groups in breast cancer screening and high-risk patients in osteoporosis screening.




Willingness to pay (WTP); Screening; Osteoporosis; Breast cancer

Full Text:



Alwan A (2011). Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010: World Health Organization. 1st ed, Geneva, p.:1.

Gafni A (1991). Willingness-to-Pay as a Measure of Benefits: Relevant Questions in the Context of Public Decisionmaking about Health Care Programs. Med Care,29(12):1246-52.

Whynes DK, Frew E, Wolstenholme JL (2003). A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. J Health Econ,22(4):555-74.

Marshall D, McGregor E, Currie G (2010). Measuring preferences for colorectal cancer screening. Patient, 3(2):79-89.

Bobinac A, van Exel J, Rutten FF, Brouwer WB (2014). The value of a QALY: individual willingness to pay for health gains under risk. Pharmacoeconomics,32(1):75-86.

Johnson P, Bancroft T, Barron R et al (2014). Discrete choice experiment to estimate breast cancer patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Value Health,17(4):380-9.

De Bekker-Grob EW, Rose J, Donkers B, Essink-Bot M-L, Bangma C, Steyerberg E (2013). Men’s preferences for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer, 108(3):533-41.

Lathia N, Isogai PK, Walker SE et al (2013). Eliciting patients’ preferences for outpatient treatment of febrile neutropenia: a discrete choice experiment. Support Care Cancer, 21(1):245-51.

Ghaderi H, vatankhah S, khoshkam M, rohani B (2012). Estimation of Willingness to Pay For Mammographic Breast Cancer Screening Tests among Women in Tehran, Based On Contingent Valuation Method: 2010 . Journal of Health Administration, 15 (47) :32-46 . [In persian]

Mitchel RC, Carson RT (1989). Using survey to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washigton DC,Resource for The Future.pp:1-56.

Agurto I, Bishop A, Sanchez G, Betancourt Z, Robles S (2004). Perceived barriers and benefits to cervical cancer screening in Latin America. Prev Med,39(1):91-8.

Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ (2006). American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin, 56(1):11-25.

De Steur H, Gellynck X, Feng S, Rutsaert P, Verbeke W (2012). Determinants of willingness-to-pay for GM rice with health benefits in a high-risk region: Evidence from experimental auctions for folate biofortified rice in China. Food Qual Prefer, 25(2):87-94.

Borghans L, Heckman JJ, Golsteyn BH, Meijers H (2009). Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. J Eur Econ Assoc,7(2‐3):6458-9.

Folland S, Goodman AC, Stano M (2007). The economics of health and health care. Pearson Prentice Hall New Jerse.

Entezrmahdi R, ramezani R, Shamshiri A, Etemad K(2011). The breast cancer controling national program in Islamic Republic of Iran, Action plan and implementation guidelines for breast cancer screening with mammography and clinical examination,Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Department of Health [In persian].


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.