Willingness to pay for arthritis symptom alleviation: Comparison of closed-ended questions with and without follow-up

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 60-72

  Slothuus, Ulla ^a   Larsen, Mette L ^a   Junker, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Dichotomous choice; Monte Carlo simulation; Rheumatoid arthritis; Statistical power; TNF blockade; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENT; C A2; TUMOR NECROSIS FACTOR ALPHA; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADULT; ARTHRITIS; ARTICLE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; SYSTEM ANALYSIS;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENTS; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; DENMARK; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 0034020661     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462300016160     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Alberini, A. Efficiency vs bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: Bivariate and interval-data models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1995, 29, 169-80.
2. Alberini, A. Testing willingness-to-pay models of discrete choice contingent valuation survey data. Land Economics, 1995, 71, 83-95.
3. Cameron, T. A., & Quiggin, J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a 'dichotomous choice with follow-up' questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1994, 27, 218-34.
4. Diener, A., O'Brien, B., & Gafni, A. Health care contingent valuation studies: A review and classification of the literature. Health Economics, 1998, 7, 313-26.
5. Donaldson, C. Theory and practice of willingness to pay for health care. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 1993. HERU Discussion Paper 01/93.
6. Elliott, M. J., Maini, R. N., Feldmann, M., et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with chimeric monoclonal antibodies to tumor necrosis factor α. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 1993, 36, 1681-90.
7. Greene, W. H. LIMDEP, version 6.0. User's manual and reference guide. New York: Econometric Software, Inc., 1991.
8. Greene, W. H. Econometric analysis, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997.
9. Gyldmark, M., and Morrison, G. Appraising the use of contingent valuation. Health Economics, 1992, 1, 233-43.
10. Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., and Kanninen, B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1991, 73, 1255-63.
11. Harnett, D. L., and Soni, A. K. Statistical methods for business and economics, 4th ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1991.
12. Hendry, D. F. Dynamic econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
13. Herriges, J. A., and Shogren, J. F. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1996, 30, 112-31.
14. Johannesson, M., Johansson, P. O., Kriström, B., and Gerdtham, U. G. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy. Further results. Journal of Health Economics, 1993, 12, 95-108.
15. Kanninen, B. J. Design of sequential experiments for contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1993, 25, S1-11.
16. Kanninen, B. J. Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics, 1993, 69, 138-46.
17. Kanninen, B. J. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1995, 28, 114-25.
18. Kanninen, B. J., and Kriström, B. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice valuation models: Comment. Land Economics, 1995, 69, 199-202.
19. Kriström, B. Discrete and continuous valuation questions: Do they give different answers? Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet. Institutionen for skogsekonomi. Arbetsrapport, 1989.
20. Langford, I. H. Using a generalized linear mixed model to analyze dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Economics, 1994, 70, 507-14.
21. Maddala, G. S. Introduction to Econometrics, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992.
22. McFadden, D., & Leonard, G. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: Methodologies for data collection and analysis. In Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Economics, Inc., 1993.
23. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 1989.
24. Phillips, K. A., Homan, R. K., Luft, H. S., et al. Willingness to pay for poison control centers. Journal of Health Economics, 1997, 16, 343-57.