IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i1d10.1007_s40273-021-01076-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A General Public Study on Preferences and Welfare Impacts of Antimicrobial Resistance in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Veronica Dorgali

    (Queen’s University Belfast
    University of Florence)

  • Alberto Longo

    (Queen’s University Belfast)

  • Caroline Vass

    (RTI Health Solutions, RTI International
    The University of Manchester)

  • Gemma Shields

    (The University of Manchester)

  • Roger Harrison

    (The University of Manchester)

  • Riccardo Scarpa

    (Durham University)

  • Marco Boeri

    (Queen’s University Belfast
    RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Forsyth House, Cromac Square)

Abstract

Background Antibiotics have led to considerable increases in life expectancy. However, over time, antimicrobial resistance has accelerated and is now a significant global public health concern. Understanding societal preferences for the use of antibiotics as well as eliciting the willingness to pay for future research is crucial. Objective To investigate preferences for different strategies to optimize antibiotic use and to understand the willingness to pay for future research in antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial drug development. Methods A discrete-choice experiment was administered to a sample of the UK general population. Respondents were asked to make nine choices, each offering three options—two hypothetical “doctor and antibiotics” and one “no doctor—no antibiotics”—defined by five attributes: treatment, days needed to recover, risk of bacterial infection that needs antibiotics, risk of common side effects, and risk of antimicrobial resistance by 2050. Data were analyzed using random parameters logit models. A double-bounded contingent valuation was also included in the survey to explore the willingness to pay for policies to contain antimicrobial resistance. Results Among the 2579 respondents who completed the survey, 1151 always selected “no doctor—no antibiotics” and 57 never varied their choices; therefore, 1371 responses were used in the analysis. Risk of antimicrobial resistance by 2050 was the most important attribute and the “treatment” was the least important attribute, although this was sensitive to a higher risk of bacterial infection. The aggregate annual willingness to pay for containing antimicrobial resistance was approximately £8.35 billion (~£5–£10 billion). Conclusions The antimicrobial resistance risk is relevant and important to the general public. The high willingness to pay suggests that large investments in policies or interventions to combat antimicrobial resistance are justified.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Veronica Dorgali & Alberto Longo & Caroline Vass & Gemma Shields & Roger Harrison & Riccardo Scarpa & Marco Boeri, 2022. "A General Public Study on Preferences and Welfare Impacts of Antimicrobial Resistance in the United Kingdom," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 65-76, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01076-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01076-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01076-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-021-01076-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna Alberini & James R. Kahn (ed.), 2006. "Handbook on Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1893, December.
    2. Carol Mansfield & Jessie Sutphin & Marco Boeri, 2020. "Assessing the impact of excluded attributes on choice in a discrete choice experiment using a follow‐up question," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(10), pages 1307-1315, October.
    3. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Kuosmanen, Timo & Kortelainen, Mika, 2007. "Valuing environmental factors in cost-benefit analysis using data envelopment analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 56-65, April.
    4. Kevin Boyle & Semra Özdemir, 2009. "Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 247-264, February.
    5. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan, 2000. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland: Reply," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 129-132, January.
    6. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    7. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    9. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    10. Stephanie F. Stefanski & Jay P. Shimshack, 2016. "Valuing Marine Biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico: Evidence from the Proposed Boundary Expansion of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 211-232.
    11. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    12. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    13. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    14. Riccardo Scarpa, 2000. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland: Comment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 122-128, January.
    15. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    16. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo, 2003. "Economics of Wildlife Tourism," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48969, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    17. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    18. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    19. Cawley, John, 2008. "Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 281-292, July.
    20. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.

    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:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01076-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.