Sophie Gottschalk1, Hans-Helmut König2, Michael Schwenk3,4, Corinna Nerz5, Clemens Becker5, Jochen Klenk5,6,7, Carl-Philipp Jansen5,8, Judith Dams2. 1. Department of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. s.gottschalk@uke.de. 2. Department of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Network Aging Research, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Human Performance Research Centre, Department of Sport Science, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany. 5. Department of Clinical Gerontology and Geriatric Rehabilitation, Robert Bosch Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany. 6. Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. 7. IB University of Applied Health and Social Sciences, Study Centre Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. 8. Institute of Sports and Sports Sciences, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perceived benefits of intervention programs from a participant perspective can be examined by assessing their willingness to pay (WTP). Aiming to support decision-makers in their decision to implement a fall prevention program, this study examined (1) the WTP for a group-based and an individually delivered fall prevention program, (2) which factors influence WTP, and (3) whether the WTP exceeds the intervention costs. METHODS: WTP was elicited using Payment Cards from 237 individuals who participated in a randomized non-inferiority trial (LiFE-is-LiFE) comparing a group version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program (gLiFE) with the individually delivered version (LiFE). Linear regression models were used to examine factors associated with WTP. The net benefit for (g)LiFE was calculated as the difference between WTP and intervention costs, assuming different scenarios of intervention costs (varying group sizes of gLiFE) and hypothetical subsidy levels by a payer (€0, €50, or €75). RESULTS: The mean WTP was €196 (95% CI [172, 221]) for gLiFE and €228 (95% CI [204, 251]) for LiFE. In the linear regression model, WTP was significantly associated with delivery format (-€32, 95% CI [- 65, - 0.2], for gLiFE) and net household income (+ 68€, 95% CI [23, 113], for ≥€3000 compared to <€2000). The net benefit for gLiFE was positive in most cases. Due to higher intervention costs of LiFE compared to gLiFE (€298 vs. €113), the net benefit for LiFE was negative for the majority of the sample, even at a subsidy of €75. CONCLUSION: The results provide insight into how valuable the interventions are perceived by the participants and thereby may be used by decision-makers as complement to cost-effectiveness analyses. WTP for both programs was generally high, probably indicating that participants perceived the intervention as quite valuable. However, further research is needed on the WTP and net benefit of fall prevention programs, as results relied on the specific context of the LiFE-is-LiFE trial.
BACKGROUND: Perceived benefits of intervention programs from a participant perspective can be examined by assessing their willingness to pay (WTP). Aiming to support decision-makers in their decision to implement a fall prevention program, this study examined (1) the WTP for a group-based and an individually delivered fall prevention program, (2) which factors influence WTP, and (3) whether the WTP exceeds the intervention costs. METHODS: WTP was elicited using Payment Cards from 237 individuals who participated in a randomized non-inferiority trial (LiFE-is-LiFE) comparing a group version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program (gLiFE) with the individually delivered version (LiFE). Linear regression models were used to examine factors associated with WTP. The net benefit for (g)LiFE was calculated as the difference between WTP and intervention costs, assuming different scenarios of intervention costs (varying group sizes of gLiFE) and hypothetical subsidy levels by a payer (€0, €50, or €75). RESULTS: The mean WTP was €196 (95% CI [172, 221]) for gLiFE and €228 (95% CI [204, 251]) for LiFE. In the linear regression model, WTP was significantly associated with delivery format (-€32, 95% CI [- 65, - 0.2], for gLiFE) and net household income (+ 68€, 95% CI [23, 113], for ≥€3000 compared to <€2000). The net benefit for gLiFE was positive in most cases. Due to higher intervention costs of LiFE compared to gLiFE (€298 vs. €113), the net benefit for LiFE was negative for the majority of the sample, even at a subsidy of €75. CONCLUSION: The results provide insight into how valuable the interventions are perceived by the participants and thereby may be used by decision-makers as complement to cost-effectiveness analyses. WTP for both programs was generally high, probably indicating that participants perceived the intervention as quite valuable. However, further research is needed on the WTP and net benefit of fall prevention programs, as results relied on the specific context of the LiFE-is-LiFE trial.
Authors: Klaas A Hartholt; Ed F van Beeck; Suzanne Polinder; Nathalie van der Velde; Esther M M van Lieshout; Martien J M Panneman; Tischa J M van der Cammen; Peter Patka Journal: J Trauma Date: 2011-09
Authors: Sophie Gottschalk; Hans-Helmut König; Michael Schwenk; Corinna Nerz; Clemens Becker; Jochen Klenk; Carl-Philipp Jansen; Judith Dams Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Jorge Subías-Perié; David Navarrete-Villanueva; Alba Gómez-Cabello; Germán Vicente-Rodríguez; José Antonio Casajús Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: Franziska Kramer; Sarah Labudek; Carl-Philipp Jansen; Corinna Nerz; Lena Fleig; Lindy Clemson; Clemens Becker; Michael Schwenk Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2020-01-22