Comparison of four contingent valuation methods to estimate the economic value of a pneumococcal vaccine in Bangladesh

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 481-487

  Heinzen, Rebekah R ^a   Bridges, John F P ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Developing countries; Evaluation methodology; Health services needs and demand; Social values; Vaccines

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; KETONES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; EVALUATION METHODOLOGY; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; SOCIAL VALUES; VACCINES;

GAME THEORY;

PNEUMOCOCCUS VACCINE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BANGLADESH; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONTINGENCY TABLE; DRUG COST; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; OPEN ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADULT; BANGLADESH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINES; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 53149140641     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S026646230808063X     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Arifeen SE, Akhter T, Chowdhury HR, et al. Causes of death in children under five years of age. In: National Institute of Population Research and Training, Mitra and Associates, ORC Macro, eds. Bangladesh demographic and health survey 2004. Dhaka: National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT); 2005:125-133.
2. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register. 1993;58:08/01/07-4601-14. http://www.darp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/cvblue.pdf. Accessed 11 January 1993.
3. Blamey RK, Bennett JW, Morrison MD. Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Econ. 1999;75:126-141.
4. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Blomquist GC, Liljas B, O'Conor RM. Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. South Econ J. 1998;65:169-177.
5. Boyle KJ, Johnson FR, McCollum DW, et al. Valuing public goods: Discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. Land Econ. 1996;72:381-396.
6. Bridges J. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: An emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2:213-224.
7. Bridges J, Jones C. Patient based health technology assessment: Avision of what might one day be possible. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:30-35.
8. Cutts FT, Zaman SM, Enwere G, et al. Efficacy of nine-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine against pneumonia and invasive pneumococcal disease in The Gambia: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1139-1146.
9. Frew EJ, Whynes DK, Wolstenholme JL. Eliciting willingness to pay: Comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:150-159.
10. Frew EJ, Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK. Comparing willingness-to-pay: Bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats. Health Policy. 2004;68:289-298.
11. Frykblom P. Hypothetical question modes and real willingness to pay. J Environ Econ Manage. 1997;34:275-287.
12. Graff Zivin J, Bridges J. Addressing risk preferences in cost-effectiveness analyses. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2002;1:135-139.
13. Günther OH, König HH. Decision makers' and scientists' opinion about contingent valuation and choice experiments for measuring willingness to pay in health care: Results from a survey in Germany. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:351-361.
14. Herbild L, Gyrd-Hansen D, Bech M. Patient preferences for pharmacogenetic screening in depression. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:96-103.
15. Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Borgquist L. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy-results of a Swedish pilot study. J Health Econ. 1991;10:461-474.
16. Kauder E. Genesis of the marginal utility theory: From Aristotle to the end of the eighteenth century. Econ J. 1953;63:638-650.
17. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. 1999;47:97-123.
18. Lindholm L, Rosén M, Hellsten G. Are people willing to pay for a community-based preventive program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1994;10:317-324.
19. Mill JS. Principles of political economy: With some of their applications to social philosophy. London: John W. Parker; 1848.
20. O'Brien B, Gafni A. When do 'dollars' make sense? towards a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:288-299.
21. Onwujekwe O. Searching for a better willingness to pay elicitation method in rural Nigeria: The binary question with follow-up method versus the bidding game technique. Health Econ. 2001;10:147-158.
22. Onwujekwe O, Uzochukwu B. Stated and actual altruistic willingness to pay for insecticide-treated nets in Nigeria: Validity of open-ended and binary with follow-up questions. Health Econ. 2004;13:477-492.
23. Ryan M, Scott D, Donaldson C. Valuing health care using willingness to pay: A comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. J Health Econ. 2004;23:237-258.
24. Whynes DK, Frew EJ, Wolstenholme JL. Willingness-to-pay and demand curves: A comparison of results obtained using different elicitation formats. Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2005;5:369-386.
25. Whynes DK, Wolstenholme JL, Frew E. Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales. Health Econ. 2004;13:183-190.
26. Yeung RY, Smith RD. Can we use contingent valuation to assess the demand for childhood immunisation in developing countries?: A systematic review of the literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4:165-173.