Dataset Information

Contingent Valuation Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Health Economic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A greater emphasis on providing high-value orthopaedic interventions has resulted in increased health economic reporting. The contingent-valuation method (CVM) is used to determine consumer valuation of the benefits provided by healthcare interventions. CVM is an important value-based health economic tool that is underutilized in orthopaedic surgery.

Questions/purposes

The purpose of this study was to (1) identify previously published CVM studies in the orthopaedic literature, (2) assess the methodologies used for CVM research, and (3) understand how CVM has been used in the orthopaedic cost-benefit analysis framework.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE database was performed to compile CVM studies. Search terms incorporated the phrase willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) in combination with orthopaedic clinical key terms. Study methodology was appraised using previously defined empirical and conceptual criteria for CVM studies.

Results

Of the 160 studies retrieved, 22 (13.8%) met our inclusion criteria. The economics of joint arthroplasty (n?=?6, 27.3%) and non-operative osteoarthritis care (n?=?4, 18.2%) were the most common topics. Most studies used CVM for pricing and/or demand forecasting (n?=?16, 72.7%); very few studies used CVM for program evaluation (n?=?6). WTP was used in all included studies, and one study used both WTP and WTA. Otherwise, there was little consistency among included studies in terms of CVM methodology. Open-ended questioning was used by only ten studies (45.5%), a significant number of studies did not perform a sensitivity analysis (n?=?9, 40.9%), and none of the studies accounted for the risk preference of subjects. Only two of the included studies applied CVM within a cost-benefit analysis framework.

Conclusion

CVM is not commonly reported in orthopaedic surgery and is seldom used in the context of cost-benefit analysis. There is wide variability in the methods used to perform CVM. We propose that CVM is an appropriate and underappreciated method for understanding the value of orthopaedic interventions. Increased attention should be paid to consumer valuations for orthopaedic interventions.

SUBMITTER: Nwachukwu BU

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6148581 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Contingent Valuation Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Health Economic Review.

Nwachukwu Benedict U BU Eliasberg Claire D CD Hamid Kamran S KS Fu Michael C MC Bach Bernard R BR Allen Answorth A AA Albert Todd J TJ

HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery 20180409 3

<h4>Background</h4>A greater emphasis on providing high-value orthopaedic interventions has resulted in increased health economic reporting. The contingent-valuation method (CVM) is used to determine consumer valuation of the benefits provided by healthcare interventions. CVM is an important value-based health economic tool that is underutilized in orthopaedic surgery.<h4>Questions/purposes</h4>The purpose of this study was to (1) identify previously published CVM studies in the orthopaedic lite ...[more]

PMID: 30258339

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChanging population demographics and technology developments have resulted in growing interest in the potential of consumer-facing digital health. In the United Kingdom, a £37 million (US $49 million) national digital health program delivering assisted living lifestyles at scale (dallas) aimed to deploy such technologies at scale. However, little is known about how consumers value such digital health opportunities.ObjectiveThis study explored consumers' perspectives on the potential value of digital health technologies, particularly mobile health (mHealth), to promote well-being by examining their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for such health solutions.MethodsA contingent valuation study involving a UK-wide survey that asked participants to report open-ended absolute and marginal WTP or willingness-to-accept for the gain or loss of a hypothetical mHealth app, Healthy Connections.ResultsA UK-representative cohort (n=1697) and a dallas-like (representative of dallas intervention communities) cohort (n=305) were surveyed. Positive absolute and marginal WTP valuations of the app were identified across both cohorts (absolute WTP: UK-representative cohort £196 or US $258 and dallas-like cohort £162 or US $214; marginal WTP: UK-representative cohort £160 or US $211 and dallas-like cohort £151 or US $199). Among both cohorts, there was a high prevalence of zeros for both the absolute WTP (UK-representative cohort: 467/1697, 27.52% and dallas-like cohort: 95/305, 31.15%) and marginal WTP (UK-representative cohort: 487/1697, 28.70% and dallas-like cohort: 99/305, 32.5%). In both cohorts, better general health, previous amount spent on health apps (UK-representative cohort 0.64, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.01; dallas-like cohort: 1.27, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.23), and age had a significant (P>.00) association with WTP (UK-representative cohort: -0.1, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01; dallas-like cohort: -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01), with younger participants willing to pay more for the app. In the UK-representative cohort, as expected, higher WTP was positively associated with income up to £30,000 or US $39,642 (0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.4) and increased spending on existing phone and internet services (0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74). The amount spent on existing health apps was shown to be a positive indicator of WTP across cohorts, although the effect was marginal (UK-representative cohort 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.01; dallas-like cohort 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.02).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that consumers value mHealth solutions that promote well-being, social connectivity, and health care control, but it is not universally embraced. For mHealth to achieve its potential, apps need to be tailored to user accessibility and health needs, and more understanding of what hinders frequent users of digital technologies and those with long-term conditions is required. This novel application of WTP in a digital health context demonstrates an economic argument for investing in upskilling the population to promote access and expedite uptake and utilization of such digital health and well-being apps.

Project description:BackgroundThe economic burden of musculoskeletal diseases is substantial and growing. Economic evaluations compare costs and health benefits of interventions simultaneously to help inform value-based care; thus, it is crucial to ensure that studies are using appropriate methodology to provide valid evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions. This is particularly the case in orthopaedic sports medicine, where several interventions of varying costs are available to treat common hip and knee conditions.PurposeTo summarize and evaluate the quality of economic evaluations in orthopaedic sports medicine for knee and hip interventions and identify areas for quality improvement.Study designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsThe Medline, AMED, OVID Health Star, and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to March 1, 2020, to identify economic evaluations that compared ≥2 interventions for hip and/or knee conditions in orthopaedic sports medicine. We assessed the quality of full economic evaluations using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, which consists of 16 questions for a total score of 100. We classified studies into quartiles based on QHES score (extremely poor quality to high quality) and we evaluated the frequency of studies that addressed each of the 16 QHES questions.ResultsA total of 93 studies were included in the systematic review. There were 41 (44%) cost analyses, of which 21 (51%) inappropriately concluded interventions were cost-effective. Only 52 (56%) of the included studies were full economic evaluations, although 40 of these (77%) fell in the high-quality quartile. The mean QHES score was 83.2 ± 19. Authors consistently addressed 12 of the QHES questions; questions that were missed or unclear were related to statistical uncertainty, appropriateness of costing methodology, and discussion of potential biases. The most frequently missed question was whether the cost perspective of the analysis was stated and justified.ConclusionThe number of studies in orthopaedic sports medicine is small, despite their overall good quality. Yet, there are still many highly cited studies based on low-quality or partial economic evaluations that are being used to influence clinical decision-making. Investigators should follow international health economic guidelines for study design and critical appraisal of studies to further improve quality.

Dataset Information

Contingent Valuation Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Health Economic Review.

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Contingent Valuation Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Health Economic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets