IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Longitudinal changes and determinants of parental willingness to pay for the prevention of childhood overweight and obesity


  • Romy Lauer

    (Ulm University Medical Center)

  • Meike Traub

    (Ulm University Medical Center
    Ulm University)

  • Sylvia Hansen

    (Unversity of Cologne)

  • Reinhold Kilian

    (Ulm University Medical Center)

  • Jürgen Michael Steinacker

    (Ulm University Medical Center)

  • Dorothea Kesztyüs

    (Ulm University Medical Center
    Ulm University Medical Center)


Background Willingness to Pay (WTP) is an alternative to measure quality-adjusted life years for cost-effectiveness analyses. The aim was to evaluate longitudinal changes and determinants of parental WTP for the prevention of childhood overweight and obesity. Methods Longitudinal data from post- (T2) and follow-up (T3) measurements of a school-based health promotion program in Germany. Parental questionnaires included general WTP and the corresponding amount to reduce incidental childhood overweight and obesity by half. Longitudinal differences were examined with the McNemar test for general WTP and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for the amount of WTP. Regression analyses were conducted to detect determinants. Results General parental WTP significantly decreased from 48.9% to 35.8% (p

Suggested Citation

  • Romy Lauer & Meike Traub & Sylvia Hansen & Reinhold Kilian & Jürgen Michael Steinacker & Dorothea Kesztyüs, 2020. "Longitudinal changes and determinants of parental willingness to pay for the prevention of childhood overweight and obesity," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-00266-z
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-020-00266-z

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    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

    1. David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme & Emma Frew, 2004. "Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 183-190, February.
    2. Khachapon Nimdet & Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk & Kittaya Vichansavakul & Surachat Ngorsuraches, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Studies Eliciting Willingness-to-Pay per Quality-Adjusted Life Year: Does It Justify CE Threshold?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Blog mentions

    As found by, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 8th June 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-06-08 11:00:08

    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. Michael Ahlheim & Oliver Frör & Antonia Heinke & Alwin Keil & Nguyen Minh Duc & Pham Van Dinh & Camille Saint-Macary & Manfred Zeller, 2008. "Landslides in mountainous regions of Northern Vietnam: Causes, protection strategies and the assessment of economic losses," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 298/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Byrne, Dominic & Kwak, Do Won & Tang, Kam Ki & Yazbeck, Myra, 2023. "Spillover effects of retirement: Does health vulnerability matter?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Sebastian Himmler & Job Exel & Meg Perry-Duxbury & Werner Brouwer, 2020. "Willingness to pay for an early warning system for infectious diseases," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 763-773, July.
    9. Helena Christell & Joanna Gullberg & Kenneth Nilsson & Sofia Heidari Olofsson & Christina Lindh & Thomas Davidson, 2019. "Willingness to pay for osteoporosis risk assessment in primary dental care," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    12. Laura Ternent & Aki Tsuchiya, 2013. "A Note on the Expected Biases in Conventional Iterative Health State Valuation Protocols," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 544-546, May.
    13. Mark Pennington & Manuel Gomes & Cam Donaldson, 2017. "Handling Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 623-634, August.
    14. van der Star, Sanne M. & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Individual responsibility and health-risk behaviour: A contingent valuation study from the ex ante societal perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 300-311, August.
    15. Afentoula G. Mavrodi & Vassilis H. Aletras, 2019. "Preliminary Results of a Healthcare Contingent Valuation Study in Greece," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 9(3-4), pages 3-16.
    16. Bardey, David & De Donder , Philippe & Zaporozhets , Vera, 2024. "The Health Technology Assessment Approach of The Economic Value of Diagnostic Test: A Literature Review," Documentos CEDE 21041, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    17. Colin Busby & Åke Blomqvist, 2017. "The Paradox of Productivity, Technology, and Innovation in Canadian Healthcare," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 480, May.
    18. Lotte Soeteman & Job Exel & Ana Bobinac, 2017. "The impact of the design of payment scales on the willingness to pay for health gains," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 743-760, July.
    19. Paul McNamee & Laura Ternent & Adjima Gbangou & David Newlands, 2010. "A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 75-87, January.
    20. David Whynes & Emma Frew & Jane Wolstenholme, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay and Demand Curves: A Comparison of Results Obtained Using Different Elicitation Formats," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 369-386, December.


    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:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-00266-z. 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: .

    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.