Health Economics Review

, 2:6 | Cite as

Who gets a mammogram amongst European women aged 50-69 years?

  • Ansgar wuebker


On the basis of the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement (SHARE), we analyse the determinants of who engages in mammography screening focusing on European women aged 50-69 years. A special emphasis is put on the measurement error of subjective life expectancy and on the measurement and impact of physician quality. Our main findings are that physician quality, better education, having a partner, younger age and better health are associated with higher rates of receipt. The impact of subjective life expectancy on screening decision substantially increases after taking measurement error into account.

JEL Classification

C 36, I 11, I 18


Mammogram Physician quality Life expectancy Instrumental variables 



The author thanks Dirk Sauerland (Witten/Herdecke University), Hendrik Schmitz (University of Duisburg-Essen), Jens Harbecke (University Witten/Herdecke) and Patrick Bremer (Witten/Herdecke University) and all participants of the PhD seminar on health economics and policy in Grindelwald for valuable comments. Thanks also to two anonymous referees for providing most valuable comments and to the participants of the annual conference of the "Verein für Socialpolitik" 2011 in Frankfurt and the "DGGÖ-Jahrestagung" in Bayreuth 2011 where the paper was presented. The paper uses data from SHARELIFE release 1, as of November 24th 2010 or SHARE release 2.3.1, as of July 29th 2010. The SHARE data collection has been primarily funded by the European Commission through the 5th framework programme (project QLK6-CT-2001- 00360 in the thematic programme Quality of Life), through the 6th framework programme (projects SHARE-I3, RII-CT- 2006-062193, COMPARE, CIT5-CT-2005-028857, and SHARELIFE, CIT4-CT-2006-028812) and through the 7th framework programme (SHARE-PREP, 211909 and SHARE-LEAP, 227822). Additional funding from the U.S. National Institute on Aging (U01 AG09740-13S2, P01 AG005842, P01 AG08291, P30 AG12815, Y1-AG-4553-01 and OGHA 04-064, IAG BSR06-11, R21 AG025169) as well as from various national sources is gratefully acknowledged (see for a full list of funding institutions)."

Supplementary material

13561_2011_24_MOESM1_ESM.DOC (64 kb)
Additional file 1: Table A1. First-Stage IV Regression Results: Predicting Life Expectancy. (DOC 64 KB)
13561_2011_24_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (10 kb)
Authors’ original file for figure 1
13561_2011_24_MOESM3_ESM.doc (70 kb)
Authors’ original file for figure 2
13561_2011_24_MOESM4_ESM.doc (70 kb)
Authors’ original file for figure 3
13561_2011_24_MOESM5_ESM.doc (70 kb)
Authors’ original file for figure 4
13561_2011_24_MOESM6_ESM.doc (70 kb)
Authors’ original file for figure 5


  1. 1.
    Commission of the European Communities - COM: Report from the commission to the council, The EuropeanPparliament, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 2008. []Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - OECD: Health at a Glance 2009 - OECD Indicators. OECD, Paris; 2009. []Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferlay J, Autier P, Boniol M, Heanue M, Colombet M, Boyle P: Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. Ann Oncol 2007, 18: 581–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fang H, Wang J: Estimating dynamic discrete choice models with hyperbolic discounting, with an application to mammography decisions. NBER Working Paper 16438 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moore SG, Shenoy PJ, Fanucchi L, Tumeh JW, Flowers CR: Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in a high risk population. BMC Health Serv Res 2009, 9: 9. 10.1186/1472-6963-9-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer Preventive Strategies: Breast cancer screening. In IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. Volume 7. Lyon: IARC Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Commision: European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition. Edited by: Perry N, et al. Luxembourg; 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grossman M: On the concept of health capital and the demand for health. J Polit Econ 1972,80(2):223–255. 10.1086/259880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cropper M: Health, investment in health, and occupational choice. J Polit Econ 1977, 85: 1273–1294. 10.1086/260637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giuffrida A, Gravelle H: Paying patients to comply: an economic analysis. Health Econ 1998,7(7):569–579. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(1998110)7:7<569::AID-HEC376>3.0.CO;2-SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Byrne MM, Thompson P: Screening and preventable illness. J Health Econ 1996,20(6):1077–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Howard DH: Life expectancy and the value of early detection. J Health Econ 2005,24(5):891–906. 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.03.002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jepson R, Clegg A, Forbes C, Lewis R, Snowden A, Kleijnen J: The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 2000,4(14):i-vii. 1–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schueler KM, Chu PW, Smith-Bindman R: Factors associated with mammography utilization: a systematic quantitative review of the literature. J Womens Health (Larchmt.) 2008, 9: 1477–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lairson DR, Chan W, Newmark GR: Determinants of the demand for breast cancer screening among women veterans in the United States. Soc Sci Med 2005,61(7):1608–1617. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.03.015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McGuire T: Physician agency. In Handbook of Health Economics. Volume 1. Edited by: Culyer A, Newhouse J. Amsterdam, Elsevier; 2000:461–536. Chapter 9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Viscusi WK: Do smokers underestimate risk? J Polit Econ 1990,98(6):1253–1269. 10.1086/261733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rauscher GH, Ferranc CE, Kaiser K, Campbell RT, Calhoun EE, Warnecke RB: Misconceptions about breast lumps and delayed medical presentation in urban breast cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev 2010,19(3):640–647. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0997CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    May DS, Kiefe CI, Funkhouser E, Fouad MN: Compliance with mammography guidelines: physician recommendation and patient adherence. Prev Med 1999, 28: 386–394. 10.1006/pmed.1998.0443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meissner HI, Breen N, Taubman ML, Vernon SW, Graubard BI: Which women aren't getting mammograms and why? (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2007,18(1):61–70. 10.1007/s10552-006-0078-7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ehrlich I, Chuma H: A model of the demand for longevity and the value of life extension. J Polit Econ 1990,98(4):761–782. 10.1086/261705CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khwaja A: Health insurance, habits and health outcomes: A dynamic stochastic model of investment in health. PhD thesis. University of Minnesota; 2001.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fang H, Keane M, Khwaja A, Salm M, Silverman D: Testing the mechanisms of structural models: The case of the mickey mantle effect. Am Econ Rev 2007,97(2):53–59. 10.1257/aer.97.2.53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dardanoni V, Wagstaff A: Uncertainty and the demand for medical care. J Health Econ 1990, 9: 23–38. 10.1016/0167-6296(90)90039-6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chang FR: Uncertainty and investment in health. J Health Econ 1996, 15: 369–376. 10.1016/0167-6296(96)00006-9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grunfeld EA, Hunter MS, Ramirez AJ, Richards MA: Perceptions of breast cancer across the lifespan. J Psychosom Res 2003,54(2):141–146. 10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00522-6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richards M, Shipley B, Furher R, Wadsworthn M: Cognitive ability in childhood and cognitive decline in mid-life: longitudinal birth cohort study. Brit Med J 2004, 328: 552. [] 10.1136/bmj.37972.513819.EECrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wu S: Sickness and preventive medical behavior. J Health Econ 2003,22(4):675–689. 10.1016/S0167-6296(03)00042-0CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kenkel DS: The demand for preventive medical care. App Econ 1994, 26: 313–325. 10.1080/00036849400000078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nordin M, Hiebert R, Pietrek M, Alexander M, Crane M, Lewis S: Association of comorbidity and outcome in episodes of nonspecific low back pain in occupational populations. J Occup and Environ Med 2002,44(7):677–684. 10.1097/00043764-200207000-00015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M: Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009,7(4):CD001877.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Avitabile C, Jappelli T, Padula M: Screening tests, information, and the health-education gradient. In CSEF Working Papers. 187, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy; 2008.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cawley J, Ruhm CJ: The Economics of Risky Health Behaviors. In Handbook of Health Economics. Volume 2. Edited by: TG McGuire TG, Pauly MV, Barros PP. Amsterdam, Elsevier; 2012:95–199. Chapter 3Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cutler DM, Lleras-Muney A: Understanding Differences in Health Behaviors By Education. J Health Econ 2010,29(1):1–28. 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.10.003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Koehler M, Kliegel M, Wiese B, Bickel H, Kaduszkiewicz H, van den Bussche H, Eifflaender-Gorfer S, Eisele M, Fuchs A, Koenig HH, Leicht H, Luck T, Maier W, Moesch E, Riedel-Heller S, Tebarth F, Wagner M, Weyerer S, Zimmermann T, Pentzek M: Malperformance in verbal fluency and delayed recall as cognitive risk factors for impairment in instrumental activities of daily living. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2011,31(1):81–88. 10.1159/000323315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mehta KM, Fung KZ, Kistler CE, Chang A, Walter LC: Impact of cognitive impairment on screening mammography use in older US women. Am J of Pub Health 2010,100(10):1917–1923. 10.2105/AJPH.2008.158485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Parente S, Salkever D, DaVanzo J: The role of consumer knowledge of insurance benefits in the demand for preventive health care among the elderly. Health Econ 2004, 14: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Coughlin SS, Leadbetter S, Richards S, Sabatino SS: Contextual analysis of breast and cervical cancer screening and factors associated with health care access among United States women. Soc Sci Med 2002, 66: 260–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Neimann S, Schmitz J: Honey, why don't you see a doctor? Spousal impact on health behavior. Beiträge zur Jahrestagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik 2010: Ökonomie der Familie - Session: Economic Aspects of Health 2010. No. B18-V3 []Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hurd MD, McGarry K: The predictive validity of subjective probabilities of survival. Econ Journal 2002,112(482):966–985. 10.1111/1468-0297.00065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maurer J: Who has a clue to preventing the flu? Unravelling supply and demand effects on the take-up of influenza vaccinations. J Health Econ 2009,28(3):704–717.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schmitz H, Wübker A: What determines influenza vaccination take-up of elderly Europeans? Health Econ 2011,20(11):1281–1297. 10.1002/hec.1672CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Angrist JD, Krueger AB: Instrumental variables and the search for identification: From supply and demand to natural experiments. J Econ Persp 2001, 15: 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hurd MD, McFadden D, Gan L: Subjective survival curves and life cycle behavior. In Inquiries in the Economics of Aging. Edited by: Wise D. Chicago, University of Chicago Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bloom DE, Canning D, Moore M, Song Y: The effect of subjective survival probabilities on retirement and wealth in the United States. NBER Working Paper 12688 2006.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wooldridge JM: Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Newey WK: Efficient estimation of limited dependent variable models with endogenous explanatory variables. Econometrica 1987, 55: 703–708. 10.2307/1913610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Staiger D, Stock JH: Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 1997,65(3):557–586. 10.2307/2171753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Keller B, Zemp Stutz E, Tibblin M, Ackermann-Liebrich U, Faisst K, Probst-Hensch N: Screening mammographies in Switzerland: what makes female and male physicians prescribe them? Swiss Med Wkly 2001,131(21–22):311–319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    He'ry C, Ferlay J, Boniol M, Autier P: Changes in breast cancer incidence and mortality in middle-aged and elderly women in 28 countries with Caucasian majority populations. Ann Oncol 2008, 19: 1009–1018. 10.1093/annonc/mdm593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Börsch-Supan A, Jürges H: The survey of health, aging and retirement in Europe - methodology. In Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging. Mannheim: Technical Report; 2005.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yankaskas BC, Dickens P, Bowling JM, Jarman MP, Luken K, Salisbury K, Halladay J, Lorenz CE: Barriers to adherence to screening mammography among women with disabilities. Am J Public Health 2010,100(5):947–953. 10.2105/AJPH.2008.150318CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Santos-Eggimann B, Junod J, Cornaz S: Quality of health care delivered to older Europeans. In Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe - First Results From the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. Edited by: Börsch-Supan A. et al. MEA: Mannheim; 2005:141–149.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Wubker; licensee Springer. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ansgar wuebker

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations