C Donaldson1. 1. Department of Economics, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N1, Canada. cdonalds@ucalgary.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the three different ways in which 'willingness to pay' (WTP) has been used to elicit patients' values of alternative interventions. DESIGN: For each of the three approaches a survey of patients or the public was undertaken. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: studied For two surveys, the setting was Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, where pregnant women were asked about their WTP for different methods of prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. In the third survey, parents of primary and secondary schoolchildren were asked about their WTP for different ways of providing child health services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ability of WTP to discriminate between options (i.e. to say whether one option is 'better' than another) and the consistency of WTP with stated preferences. RESULTS: Experience with some methods shows that, despite the apparent logic of the technique, it is difficult to elicit consistent responses whereby WTP values derived match the rankings of interventions compared. The most promising technique, the 'marginal approach', happens to conform more with economic theory than other approaches. Potential limitations of WTP, such as its association with ability to pay, are discussed, as are approaches to dealing with such problems. Finally, if patients prefer an intervention that is more costly than the status quo, logic dictates that those extra resources will have to be obtained from another health-care programme. In such contexts, to aid decision-making, values derived from members of the community for different programmes may be more relevant than values derived from patients. Initial studies in the use of WTP in this broader context of eliciting community values are also outlined. CONCLUSIONS: WTP has potential, but its application, and interpretation, are not straightforward. More testing of the 'marginal approach' is required and greater use of qualitative research, to assess the validity of the approach, should be made in this area.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the three different ways in which 'willingness to pay' (WTP) has been used to elicit patients' values of alternative interventions. DESIGN: For each of the three approaches a survey of patients or the public was undertaken. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: studied For two surveys, the setting was Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, where pregnant women were asked about their WTP for different methods of prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. In the third survey, parents of primary and secondary schoolchildren were asked about their WTP for different ways of providing child health services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ability of WTP to discriminate between options (i.e. to say whether one option is 'better' than another) and the consistency of WTP with stated preferences. RESULTS: Experience with some methods shows that, despite the apparent logic of the technique, it is difficult to elicit consistent responses whereby WTP values derived match the rankings of interventions compared. The most promising technique, the 'marginal approach', happens to conform more with economic theory than other approaches. Potential limitations of WTP, such as its association with ability to pay, are discussed, as are approaches to dealing with such problems. Finally, if patients prefer an intervention that is more costly than the status quo, logic dictates that those extra resources will have to be obtained from another health-care programme. In such contexts, to aid decision-making, values derived from members of the community for different programmes may be more relevant than values derived from patients. Initial studies in the use of WTP in this broader context of eliciting community values are also outlined. CONCLUSIONS: WTP has potential, but its application, and interpretation, are not straightforward. More testing of the 'marginal approach' is required and greater use of qualitative research, to assess the validity of the approach, should be made in this area.
Authors: Marie-Chantal Ethier; Dean A Regier; Deborah Tomlinson; Peter Judd; John Doyle; Adam Gassas; Ahmed Naqvi; Lillian Sung Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Arif Manji; Deborah Tomlinson; Marie-Chantal Ethier; Adam Gassas; Anne-Marie Maloney; Lillian Sung Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-06-17 Impact factor: 3.603