IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i1p56-65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value of Patient Time Invested in the Colonoscopy Screening Process: Time Requirements for Colonoscopy Study

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel E. Jonas

    (Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, daniel_jonas@med.unc.edu)

  • Louise B. Russell

    (Institute for Health and Department of Economics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey)

  • Robert S. Sandler

    (Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

  • Jon Chou

    (Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

  • Michael Pignone

    (Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

Abstract

Purpose. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening have not considered the value of patient time despite consensus recommendations to do so. The authors sought to estimate the amount and value of patient time required for screening colonoscopy. Methods. Patients who were scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were recruited from a university endoscopy center. Participants completed a time diary for the screening colonoscopy process, including time spent in preparation, travel, waiting, colonoscopy, and recovery. The authors defined several time intervals and estimated their value. The primary time interval of interest, called occupied time, included preparation, travel, waiting, the colonoscopy procedure, and on-site recovery. Time was valued at the 2005 average wage rate. The authors performed sensitivity analyses to test other time intervals and wage rates. They then incorporated patient time costs into a previously published cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening to examine their impact. Results. One hundred ten subjects completed the study. The sample was 57% female, 85% Caucasian, and 90% insured (40% Medicare, 4% Medicaid). The mean occupied time was 23.2 hours, worth $432 at the average wage rate. The authors estimate that including patient time costs in cost-effectiveness analysis would increase the cost per life-year saved with screening colonoscopy by 68%, from $13,100 to $22,000. Sensitivity analyses showed that the increase could range from 17% to 224% depending on the time interval valued. Conclusions. Patient time constitutes an important cost in colonoscopy screening and should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel E. Jonas & Louise B. Russell & Robert S. Sandler & Jon Chou & Michael Pignone, 2008. "Value of Patient Time Invested in the Colonoscopy Screening Process: Time Requirements for Colonoscopy Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 56-65, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:56-65
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07309643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07309643
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07309643?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
    2. Scott B. Cantor & Lawrence B. Levy & Marylou Cárdenas-Turanzas & Karen Basen-Engquist & Tao Le & J. Robert Beck & Michele Follen, 2006. "Collecting Direct Non-Health Care and Time Cost Data: Application to Screening and Diagnosis of Cervical Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(3), pages 265-272, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel E. Jonas & Louise B. Russell & Jon Chou & Michael Pignone, 2010. "Willingness‐to‐pay to avoid the time spent and discomfort associated with screening colonoscopy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1193-1211, October.
    2. Reza Yaesoubi & Stephen Roberts, 2010. "A game-theoretic framework for estimating a health purchaser’s willingness-to-pay for health and for expansion," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 358-377, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel E. Jonas & Louise B. Russell & Jon Chou & Michael Pignone, 2010. "Willingness‐to‐pay to avoid the time spent and discomfort associated with screening colonoscopy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1193-1211, October.
    2. Hurlimann, Anna C., 2009. "Water supply in regional Victoria Australia: A review of the water cartage industry and willingness to pay for recycled water," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 262-268.
    3. Trine Bergmo & Silje Wangberg, 2007. "Patients’ willingness to pay for electronic communication with their general practitioner," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(2), pages 105-110, June.
    4. Daniel E. Jonas & Betsy Bryant Shilliday & W. Russell Laundon & Michael Pignone, 2010. "Patient Time Requirements for Anticoagulation Therapy with Warfarin," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(2), pages 206-216, March.
    5. Whitehead, John C., 2005. "Combining willingness to pay and behavior data with limited information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 143-155, June.
    6. S. Wortley & G. Wong & A. Kieu & K. Howard, 2014. "Assessing Stated Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Critical Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 271-282, September.
    7. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    8. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Mette Lundsby Jensen & Trine Kjaer, 2014. "Framing The Willingness‐To‐Pay Question: Impact On Response Patterns And Mean Willingness To Pay," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(5), pages 550-563, May.
    9. Olivier Chanel & Khaled Makhloufi & Mohammad Abu-Zaineh, 2017. "Can a Circular Payment Card Format Effectively Elicit Preferences? Evidence From a Survey on a Mandatory Health Insurance Scheme in Tunisia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 385-398, June.
    10. Greenberg, Dan & Bakhai, Ameet & Neumann, Peter J. & Cohen, David J., 2004. "Willingness to pay for avoiding coronary restenosis and repeat revascularization: results from a contingent valuation study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 207-216, November.
    11. Havet Nathalie & Morelle Magali & Remonnay Raphaël & Carrere Marie-Odile, 2011. "Valuing the Benefit for Cancer Patients of Receiving Blood Transfusions at Home," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-19, August.
    12. Yves Arrighi & David Crainich & Véronique Flambard & Sophie Massin, 2022. "Personalized information and willingness to pay for non-financial risk prevention: An experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 57-82, August.
    13. Kaisa Kotakorpi & Jani‐Petri Laamanen, 2010. "Welfare State and Life Satisfaction: Evidence from Public Health Care," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(307), pages 565-583, July.
    14. Tang, Chao-Hsiun & Liu, Jin-Tan & Chang, Ching-Wen & Chang, Wen-Ying, 2007. "Willingness to pay for drug abuse treatment: Results from a contingent valuation study in Taiwan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 251-262, July.
    15. Jin‐Tan Liu & James K. Hammitt & Jung‐Der Wang & Meng‐Wen Tsou, 2005. "Valuation of the risk of SARS in Taiwan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 83-91, January.
    16. Zoë Philips & David K. Whynes & Mark Avis, 2006. "Testing the construct validity of willingness to pay valuations using objective information about risk and health benefit," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 195-204, February.
    17. Mark Pennington & Manuel Gomes & Cam Donaldson, 2017. "Handling Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 623-634, August.
    18. Richard D. Smith, 2006. "It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 281-293, March.
    19. Liu, Jin-Tan & Tsou, Meng-Wen & Hammitt, James K., 2009. "Willingness to pay for weight-control treatment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 211-218, July.
    20. Nathalie Havet & Magali Morelle & Raphaël Remonnay & Marie-Odile Carrere, 2012. "Cancer patients’ willingness to pay for blood transfusions at home: results from a contingent valuation study in a French cancer network," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(3), pages 289-300, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:56-65. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.