See the published version of this preprint at Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research
Lihua Sun
Shenyang Pharmaceutical University
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: The payment card (PC) format and the open-ended (OE) format are common methods in eliciting willing-to-pay (WTP) of one additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The aim of this research is to compare these two formats in eliciting the monetary value of a QALY.
Methods: A contingent valuation survey was carried out using a pre-designed questionnaire with various hypothetical scenarios. The difference between the PC and the OE formats was evaluated by a two-sample equality test. Furthermore, regression analysis was carried out to control observed heterogeneity and to test theoretical validity.
Results: In total, 461 individuals were involved, among whom 235 (51%) answered the PC question, while 226 (49%) answered the OE question. Excluding zero response and 1% top values, the mean WTP values of these two formats vary dramatically, which is 93,424 RMB (SD 117,601) for the PC, 143,347 RMB (SD 209,821) for the OE. Subgroup analysis indicated that the OE format tended to elicit lower values for less serious condition and higher values for more serious condition. Both formats were proved to be theoretically valid, whereas the OE technique was found to have a stronger association with most variables in the regression model than that of the PC format. Moreover, joint estimation indicated a significantly positive effect on the OE results.
Conclusions: This research indicated that the PC format and OE format elicited different monetary value of a QALY, but both formats were proved to be theoretically valid. More research about the difference and the validity of various WTP eliciting methods would be recommendedfor a robust estimation of WTP/QALY.
Keywords
willingness-to-pay, contingent valuation, payment card, open-ended question, threshold
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- Additionalfile1.docx
Name: Additional file 1.doc. Title: An example of willing-to-pay question. Description: This is an example of part 2 of the questionnaire, which contains a hypothetical health state and a WTP exercise. Individuals was asked to state the maximum amount he or she would be willing to pay for treatment for a hypothetical condition
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation.
Version (no preprint)
Posted 10 May, 2021
Editorial decision: Minor Revision
On 10 May, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 24 Feb, 2021
First submitted
On 18 Feb, 2021
Editor assigned
On 18 Feb, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 18 Feb, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 18 Feb, 2021
Editor invited
On 18 Feb, 2021
This version was not preprinted
Version 2
Posted 04 Nov, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 23 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 22 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 17 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 04 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 29 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 27 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 25 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 25 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 24 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 10 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 27 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 26 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 08 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 08 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
International Business
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
Lihua Sun
Shenyang Pharmaceutical University
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation.
Version (no preprint)
Posted 10 May, 2021
Editorial decision: Minor Revision
On 10 May, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 24 Feb, 2021
First submitted
On 18 Feb, 2021
Editor assigned
On 18 Feb, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 18 Feb, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 18 Feb, 2021
Editor invited
On 18 Feb, 2021
This version was not preprinted
Version 2
Posted 04 Nov, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 23 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 22 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 17 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 04 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 29 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 27 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 25 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 25 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 24 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 10 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 27 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 26 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 08 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 08 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
International Business
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation.
Background: The payment card (PC) format and the open-ended (OE) format are common methods in eliciting willing-to-pay (WTP) of one additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The aim of this research is to compare these two formats in eliciting the monetary value of a QALY.
Methods: A contingent valuation survey was carried out using a pre-designed questionnaire with various hypothetical scenarios. The difference between the PC and the OE formats was evaluated by a two-sample equality test. Furthermore, regression analysis was carried out to control observed heterogeneity and to test theoretical validity.
Results: In total, 461 individuals were involved, among whom 235 (51%) answered the PC question, while 226 (49%) answered the OE question. Excluding zero response and 1% top values, the mean WTP values of these two formats vary dramatically, which is 93,424 RMB (SD 117,601) for the PC, 143,347 RMB (SD 209,821) for the OE. Subgroup analysis indicated that the OE format tended to elicit lower values for less serious condition and higher values for more serious condition. Both formats were proved to be theoretically valid, whereas the OE technique was found to have a stronger association with most variables in the regression model than that of the PC format. Moreover, joint estimation indicated a significantly positive effect on the OE results.
Conclusions: This research indicated that the PC format and OE format elicited different monetary value of a QALY, but both formats were proved to be theoretically valid. More research about the difference and the validity of various WTP eliciting methods would be recommendedfor a robust estimation of WTP/QALY.
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- Additionalfile1.docx
Name: Additional file 1.doc. Title: An example of willing-to-pay question. Description: This is an example of part 2 of the questionnaire, which contains a hypothetical health state and a WTP exercise. Individuals was asked to state the maximum amount he or she would be willing to pay for treatment for a hypothetical condition
Loading...