IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v20y2022i3d10.1007_s40258-021-00706-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scope Issue in Contingent Valuation Studies of the COVID-19 Vaccine: The Case of China

Author

Listed:
  • Jianhong Xiao

    (Qingdao University)

  • Yihui Wu

    (Qingdao University)

  • Min Wang

    (Qingdao University)

  • Zegang Ma

    (Qingdao University)

Abstract

Background Assessing the public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine by the contingent valuation (CV) method can provide a relevant basis for government pricing. However, the scope issue of the CV method can seriously affect the validity and reliability of the estimation results. Aim To examine whether there are scope issues in respondents’ WTP for the COVID-19 vaccine and to further verify the validity and reliability of the CV estimate results. Method In this study, nine different CV double-bounded dichotomous choices (DBDC) hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine scenarios were designed using an orthogonal experimental design based on the vaccine’s attributes. A total of 2450 samples from 31 provinces in Mainland China were collected to independently estimate the public’s WTP in these nine scenarios with logistic, normal, log-logistic and log-normal parameter models. Based on this estimation, several external scope tests were designed to verify the validity and reliability of the CV estimate results. Results In the 20 pairs of COVID-19 vaccine scenarios, 6 pairs of scenarios were classified as negative scope issues, therefore not passing the external scope test. Of the remaining 14 pairs of scenarios, only four pairs of scenarios completely passed the external scope test, and one pair of scenarios partially passed the external scope test. Significant negative scope and scope insensitivity issues were revealed. Conclusion In the context of a dynamic pandemic environment, the findings of this study reveal that the CV method may face difficulty in effectively estimating respondents’ WTP for the COVID-19 vaccine. We suggest that future studies be cautious in applying the CV method to estimate the public’s WTP for the COVID-19 vaccine.

Suggested Citation

  • Jianhong Xiao & Yihui Wu & Min Wang & Zegang Ma, 2022. "Scope Issue in Contingent Valuation Studies of the COVID-19 Vaccine: The Case of China," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 417-429, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00706-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00706-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-021-00706-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-021-00706-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loomis, John B. & Le Trong Hung & González-Cabán, Armando, 2009. "Willingness to pay function for two fuel treatments to reduce wildfire acreage burned: A scope test and comparison of White and Hispanic households," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 155-160, May.
    2. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    3. Raymond Y.T. Yeung & Richard D. Smith & Sarah M. McGhee, 2003. "Willingness to pay and size of health benefit: an integrated model to test for ‘sensitivity to scale’," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(9), pages 791-796, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Mataria, Awad & Donaldson, Cam & Luchini, Stephane & Moatti, Jean-Paul, 2004. "A stated preference approach to assessing health care-quality improvements in Palestine: from theoretical validity to policy implications," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1285-1311, November.
    3. Bobinac, Ana & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "GET MORE, PAY MORE? An elaborate test of construct validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates obtained through contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 158-168.
    4. Rashmita Basu, 2013. "Willingness-to-pay to prevent Alzheimer’s disease: a contingent valuation approach," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 233-245, December.
    5. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    6. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Luchini & Christophe Muller & Erik Schokkaert, 2013. "Equivalent Income And Fair Evaluation Of Health Care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 711-729, June.
    7. Obinna Onwujekwe & Julia Fox-Rushby & Kara Hanson, 2008. "Construct Validity of the Bidding Game, Binary with Follow-up, and a Novel Structured Haggling Question Format in Determining Willingness to Pay for Insecticide-Treated Mosquito Nets," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 90-101, January.
    8. Xiao-Hua Ying & Teh-Wei Hu & Jane Ren & Wen Chen & Ke Xu & Jin-Hui Huang, 2007. "Demand for private health insurance in Chinese urban areas," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1041-1050.
    9. Powdthavee, Nattavudh & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Putting different price tags on the same health condition: Re-evaluating the well-being valuation approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 1032-1043.
    10. Lars Hein & Pete Roberts & Lucia Gonzalez, 2016. "Valuing a Statistical Life Year in Relation to Clean Air," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(04), pages 1-24, December.
    11. Laia Soler & Nicolas Borzykowski, 2021. "The costs of celiac disease: a contingent valuation in Switzerland," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1487-1505, December.
    12. Hugh Gravelle & Dave Smith, 2001. "Discounting for health effects in cost–benefit and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 587-599, October.
    13. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    14. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of 'reference goods' in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to 'construct' their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332.
    15. Ogunmodede, Adewale M. & Tambo, Justice A. & Adeleke, Adetunji T. & Gulak, Dominic M & Ogunsanwo, Mary O., 2021. "Farmers' willingness to pay towards the sustainability of plant clinics: Evidence from Bangladesh, Rwanda and Zambia," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315074, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Laura J. Damschroder & Peter A. Ubel & Jason Riis & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "An alternative approach for eliciting willingness-to-pay: A randomized Internet trial," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 96-106, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Ahmadiani, Mona & Ferreira, Susana, 2021. "Well-being effects of extreme weather events in the United States," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    19. Whynes, David K. & Sach, Tracey H., 2007. "WTP and WTA: Do people think differently?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 946-957, September.
    20. D. Gyrd‐Hansen & T. Kjær & J. S. Nielsen, 2012. "Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 101-112, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00706-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.