Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy
This paper is concerned with the concept of process utility in health care. The paper begins by outlining the reasons why it might be important to include process utility in health care evaluation. Problems in defining process and outcome are then outlined, after which the discussion turns to how process utility might be detected empirically. Willingness to pay (WTP) is suggested as one means of doing so. The methods and results of a survey to test for the existence of process utility using WTP applied to laparoscopic cholecystectomy are reported. Cholecystectomy patients on a hospital waiting list were asked about their WTP for laparoscopic rather than conventional cholecystectomy. Willingness to pay was used in two ways to examine whether process is in the utility function. First, respondents were randomly allocated to receive different descriptions of laparoscopic and conventional cholecystectomy; one group receiving a description of differences between the treatments in terms of outcomes only, whilst the other group received information on differences in the process of treatment as well as on differences in outcomes. The groups were then compared in terms of their WTP. Second, regression analysis was used to test for the association between WTP and respondents' ratings of reasons for their WTP, some of these reasons reflecting process aspects and others reflecting outcome aspects. The results lead to rejection of the hypothesis that information on process of care would lead to higher WTP. However, due to the design of the study and the difficulties in defining process and outcome, it cannot be concluded that process utility does not exist. The paper concludes by suggesting alternative methods of testing for the existence of process utility.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 44 (1997)
Issue (Month): 5 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:44:y:1997:i:5:p:699-707. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.