What explains willingness to pay for smoking-cessation treatments addiction level, quit-rate effectiveness or the opening bid?

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 407-415

  Olsen, Jan Abel ^a   Røgeberg, Ole J ^b   Stavem, Knut ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Smoking cessation therapies; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CIGARETTE DEPENDENCE SCALE; COST; FEMALE; FRIEND; HUMAN; MALE; NORWAY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER GROUP; PREVALENCE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SMOKING CESSATION; SMOKING CESSATION PROGRAM; TOBACCO DEPENDENCE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BEHAVIOR, ADDICTIVE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEES AND CHARGES; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; SMOKING; SMOKING CESSATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84868297492     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11633290-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. EPHA. European smoking bans: evolution of the legislation [online]. Available from URL: www.epha.org/a/1941 [Accessed 2012 Aug 13]
2. Xenakis JG, Kinter ET, Ishak KJ, et al. A discrete-event simulation of smoking-cessation strategies based on varenicline pivotal trial data. Pharmacoeconomics 2011; 29: 497-510
3. Leu RE. Anti-smoking publicity, taxation, and the demand for cigarettes. J Health Econ 1984; 3: 101-16
4. Hammar H, Johansson-Stenman O. The value of risk-free cigarettes: do smokers underestimate the risk? Health Econ 2004; 13: 59-71 (Pubitemid 38100651)
5. Slovic P. The construction of preferences. Am Psychol 1995; 50: 364-70
6. Mellers BA, Schwartz A, Cooke ADJ. Judgement and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 1998; 49: 447-77
7. Shiell A, Gold L. If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation. Health Econ 2003; 12: 909-19 (Pubitemid 37407336)
8. Lloyd AJ. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Econ 2003; 12: 393-402 (Pubitemid 36603550)
9. Beattie J, Covey J, Dolan P, et al. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: part 1-caveat investigator. J Risk Uncertain 1998; 17: 5-25 (Pubitemid 128405393)
10. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 1988
11. Herriges JA, Shogren JF. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J Environ Econ Manage 1996; 30: 112-31 (Pubitemid 126685569)
12. Stalhammar NO. An empirical note on willingness to pay and starting-point bias. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 242-7
13. McNamee P, Ternent L, Gbangou A, et al. A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game in contingent valuation method. Health Econ 2010; 19: 75-87
14. Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. "Coherent arbitrariness": stable demand curves without stable preferences. Q J Econ 2003; 118: 73-105 (Pubitemid 36263882)
15. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane, Penguin, 2011
16. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2012; 21: 145-72
17. Bryan S, Dolan P. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: for better or worse? Eur J Health Econ 2004; 3: 199-202 (Pubitemid 39382517)
18. Stavem K. Association of willingness to pay with severity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, health status and other preference measures. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2002; 6: 542-9 (Pubitemid 34601873)
19. Olsen JA, Donaldson C, Pereira J. The insensitivity of 'willingness-to-pay' to the size of the good: new evidence for health care. J Econ Psychol 2004; 25: 445-60 (Pubitemid 38782229)
20. Bobinac A, van Exel NJA, Rutten FFH, et al. Get more, pay more? An elaborate test of the validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates. J Health Econ 2012; 31 (1): 158-68
21. Westat. Blaise distributions and training [online]. Available from URL: http://www.westat.com/blaise/[Accessed 2012 Aug 13]
22. Etter JF, Le Houezec J, Perneger TV. A self-administered questionnaire to measure dependence on cigarettes: the cigarette dependence scale. Neuropsychopharmacology 2003; 28: 359-70
23. Stavem K, Rogeberg OJ, Olsen JA, et al. Properties of the Cigarette Dependence Scale and the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence in a representative sample of smokers in Norway. Addiction 2008; 103: 1441-9
24. Krauth BV. Peer effects and selection effects on smoking among Canadian youth. Can J Econ 2005; 38: 735-57 (Pubitemid 41461551)
25. Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G, Phillips PR. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation versus standard gambles. Oxf Econ Pap 1995; 47: 676-95
26. Gyrd-Hansen D, Kjaer T, Nielsen JS. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice? Health Econ 2012; 21 (2): 101-12
27. Diamond PA, Hausman JA. On contingent valuation measurement of nonuse values. In: Hausman JA, editor. Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North-Holland: Amsterdam, 1993
28. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211: 453-8 (Pubitemid 11145313)