Literature DB >> 3925259

What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy.

D M Berwick, M C Weinstein.   

Abstract

Evaluations of diagnostic tests have focused primarily on their value in clinical decisions. Patients may attach value to 1) information that has little or no medical significance, and 2) information (medical or nonmedical) that has no bearing on decisions to be made by the doctor or the patient. Ultrasound in pregnancy, which provides a great deal of information to both doctor and patient, was chosen as the example with which to explore these hypotheses. Sixty-two women with current or recent normal pregnancies were given a structured interview to elicit their willingness to pay for ultrasound information. Among these women, 26% of the value attached to the test related to information having no decisional significance, and 37% of the value related to information of use to the patient, but not the doctor. Overall, 44% of the value of the test, from the patients' point of view, pertained to uses outside the realm of medical decisions. On the average, interviewees alleged that they would pay +706 for the information contained in an ultrasound test in an uncomplicated pregnancy. Decision analyses and cost-effectiveness analyses that take note only of the medical, decisional uses of test information may overlook a high proportion of the value patients attach to the information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 3925259

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  21 in total

Review 1.  Willingness to pay and the valuation of programmes for the prevention and control of influenza.

Authors:  S Birch; A Gafni; B O'Brien
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Willingness to pay as a measure of health benefits.

Authors:  M V Bala; J A Mauskopf; L L Wood
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Beyond health outcomes: the benefits of health care.

Authors:  G Mooney
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1998-06

4.  Defining monetary values for quality of life improvements: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Jean Lachaine; Claudine Laurier; André-Pierre Contandriopoulos
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Periodic health examination, 1992 update: 2. Routine prenatal ultrasound screening. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-09-01       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Assessing community values in health care: is the 'willingness to pay' method feasible?

Authors:  C Donaldson; S Farrar; T Mapp; A Walker; S Macphee
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1997-03

7.  Assessing the economic value of a new antidepressant. A willingness-to-pay approach.

Authors:  B J O'Brien; S Novosel; G Torrance; D Streiner
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Assessing the benefits of health care: how far should we go?

Authors:  M Ryan; P Shackley
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1995-09

9.  QALYs: are they enough? A health economist's perspective.

Authors:  G Mooney
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  Informed choice for users of health services: views on ultrasonography leaflets of women in early pregnancy, midwives, and ultrasonographers.

Authors:  S Oliver; L Rajan; H Turner; A Oakley; V Entwistle; I Watt; T A Sheldon; J Rosser
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-11-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.