IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v10y2001i8p775-778.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological limitations of economic evaluations of antenatal screening

Author

Listed:
  • Stavros Petrou

Abstract

A review of recent economic studies of antenatal screening reveals widespread violation of accepted economic evaluation methodology. In particular, the costs and benefits of antenatal screening are often misclassified and conflated, and the non‐resource effects of averted costs are often excluded from the evaluation process. The result is a widespread violation of the explicit and systematic approaches taken by economic analysts more generally, and conclusions that may be described as misleading. This letter calls for economic analysts to be consistent in their application of economic evaluation methodology to antenatal screening programmes. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Stavros Petrou, 2001. "Methodological limitations of economic evaluations of antenatal screening," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 775-778, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:10:y:2001:i:8:p:775-778
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.636
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.636?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. John Cairns & Phil Shackley, 1993. "Sometimes sensitive, seldom specific: A review of the economics of screening," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(1), pages 43-53, April.
    2. Birch, Stephen & Donaldson, Cam, 1987. "Applications of cost-benefit analysis to health care : Departures from welfare economic theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 211-225, September.
    3. Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley & Mona Abdalla & Zosia Miedzybrodzka, 1995. "Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(6), pages 439-452, November.
    4. John Cairns & Phil Shackley & Vanora Hundley, 1996. "Decision Making with Respect to Diagnostic Testing," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 161-168, June.
    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. Kittiphong Thiboonboon & Wantanee Kulpeng & Yot Teerawattananon, 2018. "An economic analysis of chromosome testing in couples with children who have structural chromosome abnormalities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, June.

    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. Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley & Mona Abdalla, 1997. "Using Willingness To Pay To Value Close Substitutes: Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis Revisited," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 145-159, March.
    2. Hall, Jane & Fiebig, Denzil G. & King, Madeleine T. & Hossain, Ishrat & Louviere, Jordan J., 2006. "What influences participation in genetic carrier testing?: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 520-537, May.
    3. Peter J. Neumann & Joshua T. Cohen & James K. Hammitt & Thomas W. Concannon & Hannah R. Auerbach & ChiHui Fang & David M. Kent, 2012. "Willingness‐to‐pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 238-251, March.
    4. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    5. Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998. "Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326, June.
    6. A. Gafni & S. D. Walter & S. Birch & P. Sendi, 2008. "An opportunity cost approach to sample size calculation in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 99-107, January.
    7. Olmstead, Todd & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1999. "The menu-setting problem and subsidized prices: drug formulary illustration," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 523-550, October.
    8. Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 2003. "Economics and the evaluation of health care programmes: generalisability of methods and implications for generalisability of results," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 207-219, May.
    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. Fan Yang & Brenda Gannon & Andrew Weightman, 2018. "Public’s Willingness to Pay Towards a Medical Device for Detecting Foot Ulceration in People with Diabetes," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 559-567, August.
    11. Fernando Antoñanzas & R. Rodríguez-Ibeas & M. Hutter & R. Lorente & C. Juárez & M. Pinillos, 2012. "Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 651-661, October.
    12. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Jes Søgaard, 2001. "Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 617-634, October.
    13. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    14. Maiwenn J. Al & Talitha L. Feenstra & Ben A. van Hout, 2005. "Optimal allocation of resources over health care programmes: dealing with decreasing marginal utility and uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 655-667, July.
    15. Cam Donaldson & Andrew Jones & Tracy Mapp & Jan Abel Olson, 1998. "Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 667-677.
    16. Haddak, Mohamed Mouloud & Lefèvre, Marie & Havet, Nathalie, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for road safety improvement," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-10.
    17. 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.
    18. Alan Shiell & Penelope Hawe & Janelle Seymour, 1997. "Values and preferences are not necessarily the same," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(5), pages 515-518, September.
    19. Karen Gerard & Marian Shanahan & Jordan Louviere, 2003. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: A pilot study of breast screening participation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(9), pages 1073-1085.
    20. Randi Nielsen & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2002. "Prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis: an economic analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(4), pages 285-299, June.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:10:y:2001:i:8:p:775-778. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.