data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7e1e6/7e1e61f01d233b91960c61442e748a5609c80a7c" alt="Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset"
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Oncol.
Sec. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention
Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1467457
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction: Routine population-level screening may in the future reduce the high mortality rates associated with late-stage ovarian cancer diagnosis. However, the voluntary nature of screening means that understanding the public's acceptability of the benefits, harms and likely uptake of any potential screening programme is crucial to implementation.Objective: To measure public preferences towards the benefits and harms of a potential screening programme and to predict uptake.Methods: An online Discrete Choice Experiment was completed by 250 women 40-80 years old in England and Wales. Subjects were asked 12 questions where they were asked to choose between two hypothetical screening tests described in terms of four attributes; ovarian cancer deaths, false-positive, false-negative and overdiagnosis rates, and no screening. Responses were analysed using mixed logit regression.Results: In total, 250 women completed the survey. Ovarian cancer deaths (0.42, [95% CI: 0.40 -0.44]) was the most important attribute overall, followed by the rate of false positive results (0.30, [95% CI: 0.30-0.30]). However, there were high levels of heterogeneity with individuals exhibiting low levels of worry about ovarian cancer (OR=1.76 [95% CI: 1.17-2.69]), low perceived risk of ovarian cancer (OR=1.44 [95% 1.03-2.03]) or risk-averse individuals (OR=1.46 [95% CI: 1.05-2.04]) significantly more likely to opt for the no screening alternative. Oppositely, individuals who regularly participate in cervical screening (OR=0.63 [0.47-0.90]) were less likely to opt for no screening.Overall, results indicated participants would be willing to accept 2.59 (95% CI: 1.82 -3.36) false-negative results, 205 (95% CI: 161 -248) false-positive results and 2.35 (95% CI: 1.76-2.94) per 10,000 people screened to avoid 1 ovarian cancer-related death. Uptake analysis confirmed a high willingness to undergo screening across varying levels of benefits and harms.Conclusions: Currently ovarian cancer screening is not recommended as available screening methods do not offer benefits in terms of mortality reduction. The results of this study demonstrate a high demand for ovarian cancer screening and a willingness to trade between the benefits and risks of a potential test. Results of this study provide a useful resource for assessing the acceptability of future screening modalities which may become available.
Keywords: Ovarian cancer1, screening2, Discrete Choice Experiment3, Preferences4, Demand5. Article: 5006/12, 000
Received: 30 Aug 2024; Accepted: 24 Feb 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Hall, Spencer, Lloyd, Hamilton and Medina-Lara. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Anne Spencer, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.