Literature DB >> 29796781

Mitigating hypothetical bias in willingness to pay studies: post-estimation uncertainty and anchoring on irrelevant information.

Ana Bobinac1.   

Abstract

One possible source of hypothetical bias in willingness to pay (WTP) estimates is response uncertainty, referring to subject's uncertainty about the value of the good under assessment. It has been argued that uncertainty can be measured using the post-valuation 'certainty question' that asks: 'How certain are you about your stated WTP?' and marks the degree of certainty on a quantitative or a qualitative scale. Research has shown that the self-reported certainty evaluations can help mitigate hypothetical bias and obtain increasingly accurate WTP estimates. These study reports present a simple test of reliability of post-valuation certainty assessment and then looks at the empirical evidence for clues regarding the general usefulness of certainty adjustment in mitigating hypothetical bias in WTP studies. We find that the post-estimation uncertainty scores are malleable, i.e., significantly correlated with entirely irrelevant information. We conclude that more robust evidence could justify the routine inclusion of certainty evaluation in WTP studies although in the meantime the interpretation of certainty-adjusted WTP values should be approached cautiously.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Calibration; Hypothetical bias; Preference anchoring; Preference uncertainty; Willingness to pay

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29796781     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-018-0983-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  8 in total

1.  A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  David K Whynes; Emma Frew; Jane L Wolstenholme
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  The value of a statistical life in Sweden: estimates from two studies using the "Certainty Approach" calibration.

Authors:  Mikael Svensson
Journal:  Accid Anal Prev       Date:  2009-02-06

3.  Estimating a WTP-based value of a QALY: the 'chained' approach.

Authors:  Angela Robinson; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Philomena Bacon; Rachel Baker; Mark Pennington; Cam Donaldson
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  The value of a QALY: individual willingness to pay for health gains under risk.

Authors:  Ana Bobinac; Job van Exel; Frans F H Rutten; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  M Johannesson; D Meltzer
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Attributing a monetary value to patients' time: A contingent valuation approach.

Authors:  Bernard van den Berg; Amiram Gafni; France Portrait
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: implications for societal health care resource allocation.

Authors:  Joseph T King; Joel Tsevat; Judith R Lave; Mark S Roberts
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  The social value of a QALY: raising the bar or barring the raise?

Authors:  Cam Donaldson; Rachel Baker; Helen Mason; Michael Jones-Lee; Emily Lancsar; John Wildman; Ian Bateman; Graham Loomes; Angela Robinson; Robert Sugden; Jose Luis Pinto Prades; Mandy Ryan; Phil Shackley; Richard Smith
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 2.655

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.