Literature DB >> 20967891

Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes.

Denise Bijlenga1, Gouke J Bonsel, Erwin Birnie.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare direct and indirect willingness to pay (WTP) elicitation methods in terms of feasibility, reliability, and comparability. The application is obstetrics, where always both a mother's and a child's health are at stake.
METHODS: An open-ended contingent valuation method (CVM) as a direct WTP elicitation method, and the discrete choice experiment (DCE) as an indirect WTP elicitation method. Vignettes to be valued were based on clinical patient data. Participants were 88 laypersons who received their questionnaires by postal mail.
RESULTS: The DCE task was completed faster (p=0.006) and was regarded easier (p<0.001) than the CVM task. Test-retest for CVM was substantial (ICC=0.76), and for DCE moderate (k=0.49). Female sex (p<0.001), age≥50 years (p=0.013), higher income (p<0.001), and higher education (p<0.001) were associated with higher WTP. Correlation between CVM and DCE was 0.79 (Kendall's Tau-b; p<0.001). The implied WTP as derived with DCE was between 2.3 and 10.2 times higher than with CVM. The relationship between the WTPs was linear.
CONCLUSION: It is yet unclear what lies behind the numbers of DCE. DCE has no methodological benefits over the conventional CVM when eliciting WTP for complex health outcomes in obstetrics.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  contingent valuation method (CVM); discrete choice experiment (DCE); obstetrics; pregnancy; psychometrics; utility; willingness to pay (WTP)

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20967891     DOI: 10.1002/hec.1678

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


  8 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alene Sze Jing Yong; Yi Heng Lim; Mark Wing Loong Cheong; Ednin Hamzah; Siew Li Teoh
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-12-02

3.  Preferences for a third-trimester ultrasound scan in a low-risk obstetric population: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Fiona A Lynn; Grainne E Crealey; Fiona A Alderdice; James C McElnay
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 4.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Obstetrical outcome valuations by patients, professionals, and laypersons: differences within and between groups using three valuation methods.

Authors:  Denise Bijlenga; Erwin Birnie; Ben Wj Mol; Gouke J Bonsel
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2011-11-12       Impact factor: 3.007

6.  Understanding community health worker incentive preferences in Uganda using a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Smisha Agarwal; Timothy Abuya; Richard Kintu; Daniel Mwanga; Melvin Obadha; Shivani Pandya; Charlotte E Warren
Journal:  J Glob Health       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 4.413

7.  Multi-country willingness to pay study on road-traffic environmental health effects: are people willing and able to provide a number?

Authors:  Tifanny Istamto; Danny Houthuijs; Erik Lebret
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 5.984

8.  Understanding Midwives' Preferences for Providing Information About Newborn Bloodspot Screening.

Authors:  Stuart James Wright; Fiona Ulph; Tina Lavender; Nimarta Dharni; Katherine Payne
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2018-01-18
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.