Dataset Information

Risk aversion, trust in institutions and contingent valuation of healthcare services: trying to explain the WTA-WTP gap in the Dutch population.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The preferences of citizens are a basic element to incorporate into the decision-making process when planning health policies. Contingent valuation (CV) is a common method for calculating the value for citizens that new technologies, interventions, and the provision of services or policies have. However, choosing the correct CV tool may not be a neutral decision. This work aims to assess the substitution of a healthcare service by comparing valuation differences between the willingness to pay (WTP) for the maintenance of the service versus the willingness to accept compensation (WTA) for its substitution, both of which are related to subject characteristics, with a particular focus on trust in institutions and risk aversion.

Methods

A CV study was designed to study Dutch population preferences when physician assistants replace anaesthesiologists. Differences between the distributions of WTA and WTP were compared through full decomposition methods, and conditional quantile regression was performed.

Results

Nearly two-thirds of surveyed citizens expressed null values for WTA and WTP. The other third systematically reported a value of WTA higher than that of WTP, which increased further with lower income and the possible presence of a strategic bias. In contrast, being more than 65 years old, having trust in government, and preferring anaesthesiologists decreased the WTA-WTP difference. Risk aversion had no clear association with the WTA-WTP gap.

Conclusions

Known differences between the perceived value of health services from the perspective of gains and losses could be related to people's characteristics. Trust in government but not aversion to risk was related to the WTA-WTP differences. Identifying a profile of citizens who are averse to losing health services should be considered when designing and implementing health services or interventions or making disinvestment decisions.

SUBMITTER: Martin-Fernandez J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8097777 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMalaysia has been experiencing an escalation in dengue cases since the past 5 years. As the dengue vaccine pipeline continues to develop steadily with strong public interests, this study had been sought to elicit the acceptance and the willingness to pay (WTP) for hypothetical dengue vaccine in Malaysia.MethodsThis study adopted the cross-sectional, contingent valuation study that involved 400 respondents in Penang, Malaysia. The double-bounded dichotomous choice via bidding game approach was employed to elicit the WTP value for two hypothetical 3-doses dengue vaccines (Vaccines A and B with 5- and 10-years' protection, respectively against dengue). A univariate logistic regression model was employed to assess the key determinants of vaccine acceptance, while the mean WTP value and its associated factors were measured by using the parametric two-part model (TPM).ResultsDengue vaccine appeared to be highly acceptable (88.4%) among the population in Penang, Malaysia. Respondents who were of Chinese ethnicity (OR 0.36, p = 0.017), with higher dengue knowledge score (OR 1.43, p = 0.016), and higher vaccination attitude score (OR 1.91, p < 0.001) were more likely to accept the vaccine. The first step logit estimation from TPM displayed that pensioners (OR 2.37, p = 0.036), respondents who were self-employed or working in the private sector (OR 1.21, p = 0.002), respondents with higher education level (OR 2.09-3.29, p < 0.05), and those who accepted the vaccine (OR 3.23, p = 0.001) were more likely to pay for the vaccine. The adjusted mean WTP value for the vaccine was MYR39.21 (USD9.45) per dose. Next, the second-stage regression from TPM revealed the key factors that significantly affected the WTP value, which were composed of age, gender, occupation, household income, dengue prevention practice, and protection duration of the vaccine. The pensioners and those with better dengue prevention practice were willing to pay more for the vaccines. Additionally, all the respondents elicited a higher WTP amount toward the vaccine with longer protection duration (Vaccine B).ConclusionStrong acceptance toward dengue vaccine reflects the high value of the vaccine in Malaysia. The WTP estimates offer quantification of the private benefit in reducing occurrences of the disease. Besides, the people's preferences-based WTP value for the vaccine tends to complement scientific decision-making and prioritization in the management of dengue in the country.

Project description:BackgroundA 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/purposesThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionCVM 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.

Project description:The central focus of this research is the fast and crucial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a crucial psychological, relational, and political construct: trust. We investigate how the consequences of the pandemic, in terms of healthcare, state intervention and impositions, and daily life and habits, have affected trust in public institutions in Italy, at the time when the contagion was rapidly spreading in the country (early March 2020). In this survey, addressed to 4260 Italian citizens, we analyzed and measured such impact, focusing on various aspects of trust. This attention to multiple dimensions of trust constitutes the key conceptual advantage of this research, since trust is a complex and layered construct, with its own internal dynamics. In particular, the analysis focuses on how citizens attribute trust to Public Authorities, in relation to the management of the health crisis: with regard to the measures and guidelines adopted, the purposes pursued, the motivations that determine them, their capacity for involvement, and their effectiveness for the containment of the virus itself. A pandemic creates a bilateral need for trust, both in Public Authorities (they have to rely on citizens' compliance and must try to promote and maintain their trust in order to be effective) and in citizens, since they need to feel that somebody can do something, can (has the power to) protect them, to act at the needed collective level. We are interested to explore how this need for trust affects the attributional process, regarding both attitudes and the corresponding decisions and actions. The most striking result of this survey is the very high level of institutional trust expressed by respondents: 75% of them trust Italian public authorities to be able to deal with the COVID-19 emergency. This is in sharp contrast with the relatively low levels of institutional trust characteristic of Italy, both historically and in recent surveys. Moreover, the survey allowed the discrimination of several potential predictors for trust, thus emphasizing factors that, during this crisis, are exhibiting an anomalous impact on trust.