Literature DB >> 15113640

Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats.

Emma J Frew1, Jane L Wolstenholme, David K Whynes.   

Abstract

The willingness-to-pay technique is being used increasingly in the economic evaluation of new health care technologies. Clinical trials of two methods of screening for colorectal cancer are currently being conducted in the UK and willingness-to-pay for screening has already been estimated by means of a questionnaire survey, using open-ended (OE) and payment scale (PS) formats. This paper addresses the same medical issue, although it elicits willingness-to-pay values by means of a bidding game in an interview setting. Interviews were conducted with 106 subjects in Nottingham. The bidding game format produced considerably higher valuations than had either of the previous questionnaire formats, whilst the significant differences between agreed valuations obtained using different initial bids supported the existence of starting-point bias in the bidding game. As with the questionnaire study, the majority of interview subjects offered relative valuations of tests at variance with their expressed preferences over the same tests. Given the significant difference in valuations generated by different formats, it follows that the economic case for preferring any one technology over others will depend considerably upon whichever format happens to have been used to generate the valuations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15113640     DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2003.10.003

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


  21 in total

1.  Measuring Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: What are the Implications for Moving Forward?

Authors:  Deborah Marshall; S Elizabeth McGregor; Gillian Currie
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  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

Review 3.  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

4.  Assessing willingness to pay for improved sanitation in rural Vietnam.

Authors:  Hoang Van Minh; Hung Nguyen-Viet; Nguyen Hoang Thanh; Jui-Chen Yang
Journal:  Environ Health Prev Med       Date:  2012-11-10       Impact factor: 3.674

5.  A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Teaching and Learning Technology in a Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Joshua Quisias; Emma J Frew; Simon P Albon
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.047

6.  Willingness to pay for genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease: a measure of personal utility.

Authors:  Ilona M Kopits; Clara Chen; J Scott Roberts; Wendy Uhlmann; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2011-07-12

7.  Parents' Willingness to Pay for Pediatric Weight Management Programs.

Authors:  Olivier Drouin; Mona Sharifi; Monica Gerber; Christine Horan; E John Orav; Richard Marshall; Elsie M Taveras
Journal:  Acad Pediatr       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 3.107

8.  Willingness to pay for health care services in common cold, retinal detachment, and myocardiac infarction: an internet survey in Japan.

Authors:  Hideo Yasunaga; Hiroo Ide; Tomoaki Imamura; Kazuhiko Ohe
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-02-20       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Maternal willingness to pay for infant and young child nutrition counseling services in Vietnam.

Authors:  Phuong H Nguyen; Minh V Hoang; Nemat Hajeebhoy; Lan M Tran; Chung H Le; Purnima Menon; Rahul Rawat
Journal:  Glob Health Action       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 2.640

10.  Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared decision making (DATES): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Masahito Jimbo; Karen Kelly-Blake; Ananda Sen; Sarah T Hawley; Mack T Ruffin
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.