Literature DB >> 10538292

The contingent valuation method in health care.

T Klose1.   

Abstract

The contingent valuation method (CVM) is a survey-based, hypothetical and direct method to determine monetary valuations of effects of health technologies. This comprehensive review of CVM in the health care literature points at methodological as well as conceptual issues of CVM and on willingness to pay as a measure of benefits compared with other measures used in medical technology assessment. Studies published before 1998 were found by searching computerised databases and former review literature. Studies were included, when performing CVM using original data and meeting qualitative criteria. Theoretical validity of CVM was sufficiently shown and there were several indications of convergent validity. No results on criterion validity and only a few on reliability were found. There was widespread use of different elicitation formats, which make comparisons of studies problematic. Direct questions were seen problematic. First bids used in bidding games influenced the monetary valuation significantly (starting point bias). There were indications that the range of bids of payment cards also affected the valuation (range bias). However, no strategic bias was found. The influence of different states of valuation (ex-ante, ex-post) and of payment methods, as well as the possible aggregation of the results of decomposed scenarios rather than more complex holistic scenarios, were rarely investigated. Further methodological analysis and testing seems to be necessary before CVM may be used in health care decision making. Important research topics are the connection of assessment of different elicitation methods and criterion validity as well as tests on reliability according to methodological issues. Concerning conceptual issues, the analysis of the influence of different states of evaluation and of the status of the respondents as diseased or non-diseased, as well as the aggregation of results of decomposed scenarios, proved to be topics of further research.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10538292     DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8510(99)00010-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  92 in total

1.  Health economic evaluation.

Authors:  A Shiell; C Donaldson; C Mitton; G Currie
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Unexpected yes- and no-answering behaviour in the discrete choice approach to elicit willingness to pay: a methodological comparison with payment cards.

Authors:  Thomas Hammerschmidt; Hans-Peter Zeitler; Reiner Leidl
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2003-09

3.  The contingency of contingent valuation. How much are people willing to pay against Alzheimer's disease?

Authors:  Sandra Nocera; Dario Bonato; Harry Telser
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2002-09

4.  Decisions on inclusion in the Swedish basic health care package--roles of cost-effectiveness and need.

Authors:  Lars Bernfort
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2003-12

5.  The measurement of contingent valuation for health economics.

Authors:  Ahmed M Bayoumi
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Assessing willingness to pay for cancer prevention.

Authors:  Michael A Milligan; Alok K Bohara; José A Pagán
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2010-07-16

7.  Willingness-to-pay to prevent Alzheimer's disease: a contingent valuation approach.

Authors:  Rashmita Basu
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2013-08-31

8.  Willingness-to-pay and demand curves: a comparison of results obtained using different elicitation formats.

Authors:  David K Whynes; Emma J Frew; Jane L Wolstenholme
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2005-12

9.  Innovations in health care financing: new evidence on the prospect of community health insurance schemes in the rural areas of Ethiopia.

Authors:  Abay Asfaw; Joachim von Braun
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2005-09

Review 10.  A 'league table' of contingent valuation results for pharmaceutical interventions: a hard pill to swallow?

Authors:  Tracey H Sach; Richard D Smith; David K Whynes
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.