Literature DB >> 17177324

Use, option and externality values: are contingent valuation studies in health care mis-specified?

Richard D Smith1.   

Abstract

A general population sample of Australian respondents completed a contingent valuation (CV) survey that asked them to value six scenarios. These varied according to whether the scenario was seeking to elicit: (i) use value; (ii) externality value; (iii) option value; or (iv) a combination. Results indicate that use plus externality and/or option value was significantly greater than use value alone. As CV studies in health (care) overwhelmingly focus on use value alone - often implicitly through study design rather than explicitly - this raises the possibility of mis-specification in CV research in health (care). The implications for CV in health (care) are considered. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17177324     DOI: 10.1002/hec.1189

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


  4 in total

Review 1.  Using the stated preference technique for eliciting valuations: the role of the payment vehicle.

Authors:  Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Welfare standards in hospital mergers.

Authors:  Katalin Katona; Marcel Canoy
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2012-06-12

3.  Quality-adjusted life year weights and treatment bias: Theory and evidence from cognitive interviews.

Authors:  Bryan N Patenaude; Till Bärnighausen
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2019-06-12

4.  Determining Value in Health Technology Assessment: Stay the Course or Tack Away?

Authors:  J Jaime Caro; John E Brazier; Jonathan Karnon; Peter Kolominsky-Rabas; Alistair J McGuire; Erik Nord; Michael Schlander
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 4.981

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.