Willingness to pay for ovulation induction treatment in case of WHO II anovulation: A study using the contingent valuation method

Patient Preference and Adherence

Volumn 8, Issue , 2014, Pages 1337-1346

  Poder, Thomas G ^a   He, Jie ^b   Simard, Catherine ^a   Pasquier, Jean Charles ^a  

^a CENTRE HOSPITALIER UNIVERSITAIRE DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Drug therapy; Fertility; WTP

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANADA; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FERTILITY; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREVALENCE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIOECONOMICS; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 84908118726     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1177889X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S67742     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher WD, Abma JC, Jones J. Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of US. women: data from the 2002 national survey of family growth. Vital Health Stat 23. 2005;25:1-160.
2. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, et al. The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Revised Glossary on ART Terminology. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(11):2683-2687.
3. The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Optimal evaluation of the infertile female. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(Suppl 1):S169-S172.
4. Speroff L, Glass R, Kase N. Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1994.
5. Holzer H, Casper R, Tulandi T. A new era in ovulation induction. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):277-284.
6. Palumbo A, De La Fuente P, Rodríguez M, et al. Willingness to pay and conjoint analysis to determine women's preferences for ovarian stimulating hormones in the treatment of infertility in Spain. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1790-1798.
7. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 1989.
8. Carson RT, Hanemann MW. Contingent valuation. In: Maler, KG, Vincent JR, editors. Handbook of Environmental Economics, volume 2 (chapter 17). New York: Elsevier/North-Holland; 2005.
9. Alberini A, Kahn JR. Handbook on Contingent Valuation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; 2006.
10. Whynes DK, Frew E, Wolstenholme JL. A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. J Health Econ. 2003;22:555-574.
11. Yasunaga H. Who wants cancer screening with PET? A contingent valuation survey in Japan. Eur J Radiol. 2009;70(1):190-194.
12. Borghi J, Jan S. Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: application of the contingent valuation method. Health Policy. 2008;87(2):235-248.
13. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register. 1993;58:4601-4614. Available from: http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/cvblue.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2014.
14. Ethier RG, Poe GL, Schulze WD, Clark J. A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Econ. 2000;76(1):54-67.
15. Maguire KB. Does mode matter? A comparison of telephone, mail, and in-person treatments in contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Manage. 2009;90:3528-3533.
16. Watson V, Ryan M. Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation. J Health Econ. 2007;26:463-482.
17. Haab TC, McConnell KE. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; 2002.
18. Whitehead JC. A practitioner's primer on the contingent valuation method. In: Alberini A, Kahn JR, editors. Handbook on Contingent Valuation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; 2006.
19. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P. Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1974.
20. Hanemann W. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econom. 1984;67(3):332-341.
21. Granberg M, Wikland M, Nilsson L, Hamberger L. Couples' willingness to pay for IVF/ET. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1995;74:199-202.
22. Neumann PJ, Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for in vitro fertilization: a pilot study using contingent valuation. Med Care. 1994;32(7):686-699.
23. Ryan M. Should government fund assisted reproductive techniques? A study using willingness to pay. Appl Econ. 1997;29(7):841-849.
24. Ryan M. Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay. J Econ Psychol. 1998;19:179-204.
25. Homburg R. Clomiphene citrate - end of an era? A mini-review. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(8):2043-2051.
26. 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(1):5-26.
27. Cookson R. Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view. Health Econ. 2003;12:891-894.
28. Becker G. The Elusive Embryo: how women and men approach new reproductive technologies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2000.
29. Wagstaff A, van Doorslaer E. Equity in health care finance and delivery. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of Health Economics, Vol. 1B. North Holland: Elsevier; 2000:1803-1862.
30. Onwujekwe O, Chima R, Shu E, Nwagbo D, Akpala C, Okonkwo P. Altruistic willingness to pay in community-based sales of insecticide-treated nets exists in Nigeria. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(4):519-527.
31. Lee SJ, Chung HK. Analyzing altruistic motivations in public library valuation using contingent valuation method. Libr Inf Sci Res. 2012;34(1):72-78.