Literature DB >> 18850760

Methods for the meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay data: an overview.

George Van Houtven1.   

Abstract

Given the policy relevance and growing volume of research measuring individuals' willingness to pay (WTP) for health-related goods and services, meta-analysis provides a potentially rich set of tools for answering key questions about this research area. In particular, when taken as a whole, what does the existing empirical literature tell us about health preferences, the effectiveness of health policies, and the demand for health-related goods and services? Although the application of meta-analysis techniques to health-related WTP data is fundamentally similar to other meta-analysis applications, it nonetheless presents a number of specific challenges. The purpose of this article is to describe some of the main features that distinguish WTP research and to discuss ways in which meta-analysis methods must be tailored to meet these challenges. One of the most notable features of this research area is its heterogeneity in terms of research methods, reporting practices and publication outlets. This article discusses the implications of this diversity for the methods used at various stages of meta-analysis, including problem formulation, data collection, data evaluation and abstraction, data preparation and data analysis. One central implication is a strong reliance on meta-regression and panel data approaches. Another key feature is the frequent objective of providing benefit estimates for economic evaluation. The implication for meta-analysis is that it is a powerful tool not only for synthesizing results and testing hypotheses, but also for predicting WTP and generating benefit estimates for a variety of scenarios. This article discusses what this role implies for how meta-analysis is conducted and how the results are reported.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18850760     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826110-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  10 in total

Review 1.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

Authors:  D Moher; D J Cook; S Eastwood; I Olkin; D Rennie; D F Stroup
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-11-27       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care.

Authors:  J A Olsen; R D Smith
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data.

Authors:  R L Williams
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  The logged dependent variable, heteroscedasticity, and the retransformation problem.

Authors:  W G Manning
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Valuing morbidity: an integration of the willingness-to-pay and health-status index literatures.

Authors:  F R Johnson; E E Fries; H S Banzhaf
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures.

Authors:  Arne Risa Hole
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Valuing avoided morbidity using meta-regression analysis: what can health status measures and QALYs tell us about WTP?

Authors:  George Van Houtven; John Powers; Amber Jessup; Jui-Chen Yang
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 8.  Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature.

Authors:  A Diener; B O'Brien; A Gafni
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 9.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

Authors:  D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-04-19       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  The Quality of Well-being Scale. Applications in AIDS, cystic fibrosis, and arthritis.

Authors:  R M Kaplan; J P Anderson; A W Wu; W C Mathews; F Kozin; D Orenstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

  10 in total
  4 in total

1.  Consumer Willingness to Pay for Vehicle Attributes: What Do We Know?

Authors:  David Greene; Anushah Hossain; Julia Hofmann; Gloria Helfand; Robert Beach
Journal:  Transp Res Part A Policy Pract       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 2.  Evaluating Risk Tolerance from a Systematic Review of Preferences: The Case of Patients with Psoriasis.

Authors:  Juan Marcos Gonzalez
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  Men's willingness to pay for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hiro Farabi; Aziz Rezapour; Najmeh Moradi; Seyed Mohammad Kazem Aghamir; Jalil Koohpayehzadeh
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2020-12-09

Review 4.  Consumers' Willingness to Pay for eHealth and Its Influencing Factors: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhenzhen Xie; Jiayin Chen; Calvin Kalun Or
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 7.076

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.