Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: Comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes

Health Economics

Volumn 20, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1392-1406

  Bijlenga, Denise ^a   Bonsel, Gouke J ^b   Birnie, Erwin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

contingent valuation method (CVM); discrete choice experiment (DCE); obstetrics; pregnancy; psychometrics; utility; willingness to pay (WTP)

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MALE; MATERNAL WELFARE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; OBSTETRICS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; SOCIAL STATUS; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; VIGNETTE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD (CVM); DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT (DCE); OBSTETRICS; PREGNANCY; PSYCHOMETRICS; UTILITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP);

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POSTAL SERVICE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; VALUE-BASED PURCHASING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80054749467     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1678     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aristides M, Chen J, Schulz M, Williamson E, Clarke S, Grant K,. 2002. Conjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 20 (11): 775-784. (Available from: PM:12201796.) (Pubitemid 35034445)
2. Bijlenga D, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ,. 2009. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of three health-state valuation methods using multiple-outcome vignettes on moderate-risk pregnancy at term. Value in Health 12 (5): 821-827. (Available from: PM:19508667.)
3. Boers KE, Bijlenga D, Mol BW, LeCessie S, Birnie E, van Pampus MG, Stigter RH, Bloemenkamp KW, van Meir CA, van der Post JA, Bekedam DJ, Ribbert LS, Drogtrop AP, van der Salm PC, Huisjes AJ, Willekes C, Roumen FJ, Scheepers HC, de BK, Duvekot JJ, Thornton JG, Scherjon SA,. 2007. Disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term: DIGITAT. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 7: 12. (Available from: PM:17623077.)
4. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ,. 2006. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value in Health 9 (4): 213-218. (Available from: PM:16903990.) (Pubitemid 44126775)
5. Bryan S, Dolan P,. 2004. Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse? European Journal of Health Economics 5 (3): 199-202. (Available from: PM:15452734.) (Pubitemid 39382517)
6. Bryan S, Gold L, Sheldon R, Buxton M,. 2000. Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability. Health Economics 9 (5): 385-395. (Available from: PM:10903539.) (Pubitemid 30612142)
7. Burgess L,. 2007. Discrete Choice Experiments. Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology: Sydney. (Available from:.)
8. Chapman GB,. 2002. Your money or your health: time preferences and trading money for health. Medical Decision Making 22 (5): 410-416. (Available from: PM:12365483.)
9. Diener A, O'Brien B, Gafni A,. 1998. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Economics 7 (4): 313-326. (Available from: PM:9683092.) (Pubitemid 28339960)
10. Fonteyn M, Fisher A,. 1995. Use of think aloud method to study nurses' reasoning and decision making in clinical practice settings. The Journal of Neuroscience Nursing 27 (2): 124-128. (Available from: PM:7622950.)
11. Frew EJ, Whynes DK, Wolstenholme JL,. 2003. Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Medical Decision Making 23 (2): 150-159. (Available from: ISI:000181854800005.) (Pubitemid 36373397)
12. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC,. 1996. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press: New York.
13. Hammerschmidt T, Zeitler HP, Leidl R,. 2003. Unexpected yes- and no-answering behaviour in the discrete choice approach to elicit willingness to pay: a methodological comparison with payment cards. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics 3 (3): 147-166. (Available from: PM:14625997.)
14. Howard K, Salkeld G,. 2008. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value in Health 12 (2): 354-363. (Available from: PM:18657102.)
15. Johannesson M, Jonsson B,. 1991. Economic evaluation in health care: is there a role for cost-benefit analysis? Health Policy 17 (1): 1-23. (Available from: PM:10113574.)
16. Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Aarnoudse JG, van BE, Bekedam DJ, van den Berg PP, Burggraaff JM, Birnie E, Bloemenkamp KW, Drogtrop AP, Franx A, de Groot CJ, Huisjes AJ, Kwee A, le CS, van Loon AJ, Mol BW, van der Post JA, Roumen FJ, Scheepers HC, Spaanderman ME, Stigter RH, Willekes C, van Pampus MG,. 2007. Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring in women with pregnancy induced hypertension or mild preeclampsia at term: the HYPITAT trial. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 7 (1): 14. (Available from: PM:17662114.)
17. Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Groen H, Vijgen SM, Aarnoudse JG, Bekedam DJ, van den Berg PP, de BK, Burggraaff JM, Bloemenkamp KW, Drogtrop AP, Franx A, de Groot CJ, Huisjes AJ, Kwee A, van Loon AJ, Lub A, Papatsonis DN, van der Post JA, Roumen FJ, Scheepers HC, Willekes C, Mol BW, van Pampus MG,. 2009. Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks' gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet 374 (9694): 979-988. (Available from: PM:19656558.)
18. Lancsar E, Savage E,. 2004. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Economics 13 (9): 901-907. (Available from: PM:15362181.) (Pubitemid 39264236)
19. Lloyd AJ,. 2003. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Economics 12 (5): 393-402. (Available from: PM:12720256.) (Pubitemid 36603550)
20. Lloyd A, McIntosh E, Price M,. 2005. The importance of drug adverse effects compared with seizure control for people with epilepsy: a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics 23 (11): 1167-1181. (Available from: PM:16277551.) (Pubitemid 41633405)
21. Luce RD, Tukey JW,. 1964. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1: 1-27.
22. Maddala T, Phillips KA, Johnson FR,. 2003. An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences. Health Economics 12 (12): 1035-1047. (Available from: PM:14673812.) (Pubitemid 38035308)
23. McIntosh E,. 2006. Using discrete choice experiments within a cost-benefit analysis framework: some considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 24 (9): 855-868. (Available from: PM:16942121.) (Pubitemid 44338297)
24. Mishan EJ,. 1982. Cost Benefit Analysis. An Informal Introduction. G. Allen & Unwin: London.
25. Mitchell RC, Carson RT,. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future: Washington, DC.
26. O'Brien B, Gafni A,. 1996. When do the 'dollars' make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Medical Decision Making 16 (3): 288-299. (Available from: PM:8818128.) (Pubitemid 26235234)
27. Ratcliffe J,. 2000. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values. Proceed with caution? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16 (1): 270-275. (Available from: PM:10815371.) (Pubitemid 30263220)
28. Regier DA, Ryan M, Phimister E, Marra CA,. 2009. Bayesian and classical estimation of mixed logit: an application to genetic testing. Journal of Health Economics 28 (3): 598-610. (Available from: PM:19345433.)
29. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A,. 2001. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Quality in Health Care 10 (Suppl 1): i55-i60. (Available from: PM:11533440.)
30. Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P,. 1998. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Economics 7 (4): 373-378. (Pubitemid 28339965)
31. Ryan M, Scott DA, Donaldson C,. 2004. Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. Journal of Health Economics 23 (2): 237-258. (Available from: PM:15019754.) (Pubitemid 38333025)
32. Saigal S, Stoskopf BL, Feeny D, Furlong W, Burrows E, Rosenbaum PL, Hoult L,. 1999. Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents. Journal of American Medical Association 281 (21): 1991-1997. (Available from: PM:10359387.) (Pubitemid 29254856)
33. Smith RD,. 2000. The discrete-choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics: should we adopt environmental guidelines? Medical Decision Making 20 (2): 194-206. (Available from: PM:10772357.) (Pubitemid 30198749)
34. Swartz MS, Swanson JW, Wagner HR, Hannon MJ, Burns BJ, Shumway M,. 2003. Assessment of four stakeholder groups' preferences concerning outpatient commitment for persons with schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry 160 (6): 1139-1146. (Available from: PM:12777273.) (Pubitemid 41070974)
35. Taylor SJ, Armour CL,. 2002. Acceptability of willingness to pay techniques to consumers. Health Expectations 5 (4): 341-356. (Available from: PM:12460223.) (Pubitemid 35447301)
36. Thompson SG, Nixon RM,. 2005. How sensitive are cost-effectiveness analyses to choice of parametric distributions? Medical Decision Making 25 (4): 416-423. (Available from: PM:16061893.) (Pubitemid 41023168)
37. Torrance GW, 1976. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Science 10: 129-136.
38. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL, 1972. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research 7 (2): 118-133. (Available from: PM:5044699.)
39. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C,. 2003. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research 12 (6): 599-607. (Available from: PM:14516169.) (Pubitemid 37094023)
40. Van Der Pol M, Shiell A, Au F, Johnston D, Tough S,. 2008. Convergent validity between a discrete choice experiment and a direct, open-ended method: comparison of preferred attribute levels and willingness to pay estimates. Social Science and Medicine 67 (12): 2043-2050.
41. van Osch SM, Stiggelbout AM,. 2008. The construction of standard gamble utilities. Health Economics 17 (1): 31-40. (Available from: PM:17410521.) (Pubitemid 351227524)
42. Weston A, Fitzgerald P,. 2004. Discrete choice experiment to derive willingness to pay for methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy versus simple excision surgery in basal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics 22 (18): 1195-1208. (Available from: PM:15606226.) (Pubitemid 40075721)
43. Yeung RY, Smith RD, Ho LM, Johnston JM, Leung GM,. 2006. Empirical implications of response acquiescence in discrete-choice contingent valuation. Health Economics 15 (10): 1077-1089. (Available from: PM:16518835.) (Pubitemid 44596376)