Utility and willingness to pay measurements among patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

American Journal of Gastroenterology

Volumn 96, Issue 8 SUPPL., 2001, Pages

  Kartman, Bernt ^a  

^a ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC EVALUATION; GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL FEE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW;

EID: 0034885820     PISSN: 00029270     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9270(01)02581-3     Document Type: Note

References (22)

1. A survey of standards and guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis in health care
2. The role of economic evaluation in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines
3. Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis
4. Health economics of gastroesophageal reflux disease
5. Economic evaluation in health care: Is there a role for cost-benefit analysis?
6. Health care contingent valuation studies: A review and classification of the literature
7. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses
8. Choice of long-term strategy for the management of patients with severe esophagitis: A cost-utility analysis
9. An empirical note on willingness to pay and starting point bias
10. Valuation of health changes with the contingent valuation method: A test of scope and question order effects
11. Contingent valuation with an open-ended follow-up question: A test of scope effects
12. Patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms have a poor quality of life regardless of the presence of esophagitis
13. Are methods for estimating QALYs in cost-effectiveness analysis improving?
14. The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care
15. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation
16. Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number?
17. Calibrating hypothetical willingness to pay responses
18. Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation