Literature DB >> 11921311

Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis.

Harry Telser1, Peter Zweifel.   

Abstract

This study applies conjoint analysis (CA) to estimate the marginal willingness-to-pay (MWTP) of elderly individuals for a reduction of the risk of fracture of the femur. The good in question is a hypothetical hip protector which lowers the risk of a fracture by different amounts. Other attributes are ease of handling, wearing comfort, and out-of-pocket cost, which are traded off against risk reduction. In 500 face-to-face interviews, pensioners stated whether or not they would buy the product. Results suggest that MWTP for wearing comfort exceeds that for risk reduction. Indeed, willingness-to-pay for the product as a whole is negative, indicating that it should not be included as a mandatory benefit in health insurance. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11921311     DOI: 10.1002/hec.653

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  14 in total

1.  Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Evidence from Two Overlapping Discrete-Choice Experiments.

Authors:  Harry Telser; Karolin Becker; Peter Zweifel
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Age and choice in health insurance: evidence from a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Karolin Becker; Peter Zweifel
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  An economic analysis of payment for health care services: the United States and Switzerland compared.

Authors:  Peter Zweifel; Ming Tai-Seale
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2009-04-09

4.  Chronic pain patients' treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; Uwe Junker; Christin Juhnke; Edgar Stemmler; Thomas Kohlmann; Friedhelm Leverkus; Matthias Nübling
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-06-21

5.  A closer look at decision and analyst error by including nonlinearities in discrete choice models: implications on willingness-to-pay estimates derived from discrete choice data in healthcare.

Authors:  Esther W de Bekker-Grob; John M Rose; Michiel C J Bliemer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Terry Flynn; Jordan Louviere; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  How does cost matter in health-care discrete-choice experiments?

Authors:  F Reed Johnson; Ateesha F Mohamed; Semra Ozdemir; Deborah A Marshall; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Women's experiences of and preferences for services after rape in South Africa: interview study.

Authors:  N J Christofides; D Muirhead; R K Jewkes; L Penn-Kekana; D N Conco
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-12-05

9.  Elderly patients' experiences using adaptive conjoint analysis software as a decision aid for osteoarthritis of the knee.

Authors:  Donna Rochon; Jan M Eberth; Liana Fraenkel; Robert J Volk; Simon N Whitney
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Dean A Regier; Stuart J Peacock; Reka Pataky; Kimberly van der Hoek; Gail P Jarvik; Jeffrey Hoch; David Veenstra
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 8.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.