Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature
Purpose: The contingent valuation method (CVM) is a survey-based approach for eliciting consumer's monetary valuations for programme benefits for use in cost-benefit analysis (CBA). We used the conceptual framework of O'Brien and Gafni (1996) to classify and critically appraise health care CVM studies. Methods: Search of computerized health care and economic citation databases (e.g. MEDLINE, ECONLIT) and manual search for papers published between 1984-1996 reporting primary data valuing health programme benefits in monetary units by CVM using willingness-to-pay (WTP) or accept (WTA). We classified studies using both empirical (i.e. who was surveyed and how) and conceptual criteria (i.e. which measure of consumer utility was measured and why). Results: 48 CVM studies were retrieved; the majority (42) undertook money valuation in the context of cost benefit analysis (CBA), with the remainder being pricing|demand studies. Among the 42 CBA studies, the consumer utility being measured (i.e. compensating (CV) vs. equivalent variation (EV) was explicitly stated in only three (7%) studies). WTP was measured in 95% of studies and WTA in 5%. By cross-tabulation, 42 (91%) studies were designed as WTP|CV, two (4%) were WTP|EV, two (4%) were WTA|CV and no studies used WTA|EV. Most studies were administered by mail (52%) with 38% being in-person interviews. Value elicitation techniques included open-ended questions (38%), payment cards (19%) discrete choice questions (26%) or bidding games (29%). Some form of construct validation tests, particularly associations between WTP and income, were done in 21 studies (50%). Conclusions: (i) The number of health care CVM studies is growing rapidly and the majority are done in the context of CBA; (ii) there is wide variation among health care CVM studies in terms of the types of questions being posed and the elicitation formats being used; (iii) classification and appraisal of the literature is difficult because reporting of methods and their relationship with the conceptual framework of CBA is poor; (iii) the applicability to health care of the CVM guidelines issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) panel for environmental economics is unclear. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Volume (Year): 7 (1998)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:7:y:1998:i:4:p:313-326. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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.