Literature DB >> 9032837

Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

C Donaldson1, P Shackley.   

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the concept of process utility in health care. The paper begins by outlining the reasons why it might be important to include process utility in health care evaluation. Problems in defining process and outcome are then outlined, after which the discussion turns to how process utility might be detected empirically. Willingness to pay (WTP) is suggested as one means of doing so. The methods and results of a survey to test for the existence of process utility using WTP applied to laparoscopic cholecystectomy are reported. Cholecystectomy patients on a hospital waiting list were asked about their WTP for laparoscopic rather than conventional cholecystectomy. Willingness to pay was used in two ways to examine whether process is in the utility function. First, respondents were randomly allocated to receive different descriptions of laparoscopic and conventional cholecystectomy; one group receiving a description of differences between the treatments in terms of outcomes only, whilst the other group received information on differences in the process of treatment as well as on differences in outcomes. The groups were then compared in terms of their WTP. Second, regression analysis was used to test for the association between WTP and respondents' ratings of reasons for their WTP, some of these reasons reflecting process aspects and others reflecting outcome aspects. The results lead to rejection of the hypothesis that information on process of care would lead to higher WTP. However, due to the design of the study and the difficulties in defining process and outcome, it cannot be concluded that process utility does not exist. The paper concludes by suggesting alternative methods of testing for the existence of process utility.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9032837     DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00215-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  27 in total

Review 1.  A review of alternative approaches to healthcare resource allocation.

Authors:  S Petrou; J Wolstenholme
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  What are the benefits of preventive health care?

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

3.  Unexpected yes- and no-answering behaviour in the discrete choice approach to elicit willingness to pay: a methodological comparison with payment cards.

Authors:  Thomas Hammerschmidt; Hans-Peter Zeitler; Reiner Leidl
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2003-09

4.  Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Tara Maddala; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 5.  Delayed assessment and eager adoption of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: implications for developing surgical technologies.

Authors:  Alexander C Allori; I Michael Leitman; Elizabeth Heitman
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes: An Overview of Clinical Studies.

Authors:  Brent C Opmeer; Corianne A J M de Borgie; Ben W J Mol; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare: patient preferences, risk attitudes and beyond.

Authors:  John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Victoria K Brennan; Simon Dixon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 9.  How important is mode of administration in treatments for rheumatic diseases and related conditions?

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Logan Trenaman; Mark Harrison
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.592

10.  Initial development of the Temporary Utilities Index: a multiattribute system for classifying the functional health impact of diagnostic testing.

Authors:  J Shannon Swan; Jun Ying; James Stahl; Chung Yin Kong; Beverly Moy; Jessica Roy; Elkan Halpern
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.