IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aka/soceco/v41y2019i4p433-447.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining the Marginal Willingness to Pay for the Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Croatia: A Best-Worst Scaling Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Nikolina Dukić Samaržija

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia)

Abstract

Croatia is faced with a low response to cancer-screening programs, especially the national cervical cancer screening program, which ultimately resulted in its suspension. If judged solely on the basis of revealed preferences, such a poor response would imply that the population assigns a low social value to preventive screening programs. However, the question arises as to whether revealed preferences (the population’s response), in the case of the absence of response to a preventive program, provide insight into its value (utility). Therefore, the objective of this paper is to determine the value that respondents assign to different attributes of cervical screening and, in a broader sense, to decide whether the best-worst scaling (BWS) approach is appropriate for determining the marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for public health programs. The MWTP for certain attributes of cervical cancer screening is derived from the results of a BWS study conducted in Primorje-Gorski Kotar County, Croatia. The cost function was estimated by regressing the conditional logit coeffi cients (level of utility) of three levels of the cost attribute on its corresponding values, that is, the hypothetical price. Because the sum of the MWTP corresponds with the market price of a gynecological examination in private practice, we conclude that the results obtained by the BWS confirm the revealed preferences (the market value of the service).

Suggested Citation

  • Nikolina Dukić Samaržija, 2019. "Determining the Marginal Willingness to Pay for the Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Croatia: A Best-Worst Scaling Approach," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 41(4), pages 433-447, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:aka:soceco:v:41:y:2019:i:4:p:433-447
    Note: This study was funded by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project 6558 Business and Personal Insolvency – The Ways to Overcome Excessive Indebtedness; and by the University of Rijeka under the project Approaches and Methods of Cost and Management Accounting in the Croatian Public Sector (No. 13.02.1.2.09).
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/204.2019.016
    Download Restriction: subscription
    ---><---

    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. Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    2. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    3. McIntosh, Emma & Clarke, Philip & Frew, Emma & Louviere, Jordan (ed.), 2010. "Applied Methods of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Health Care," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199237128.
    4. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1991. "An Introduction to Modern Welfare Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521356954, September.
    5. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Economics Working Papers 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    6. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    7. Thijs Schoot & Milena Pavlova & Elka Atanasova & Wim Groot, 2017. "Preferences of Bulgarian consumers for quality, access and price attributes of healthcare services—result of a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 47-71, January.
    8. Elka Atanasova & Milena Pavlova & Emanuela Moutafova & Todorka Kostadinova & Wim Groot, 2012. "Patient payments and the empirical analysis of consumer demand for hospital services: An application for Bulgaria," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 34(2), pages 313-338, June.
    9. Hurley, Jeremiah, 2000. "An overview of the normative economics of the health sector," Handbook of Health Economics, in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 2, pages 55-118, Elsevier.
    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. Thijs Schoot & Milena Pavlova & Elka Atanasova & Wim Groot, 2017. "Preferences of Bulgarian consumers for quality, access and price attributes of healthcare services—result of a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 47-71, January.
    2. Neustadt, Ilja & Zweifel, Peter, 2018. "Redistribution in Whose Favor? Preferences with Regard to Nationality and Type of Beneficiaries," MPRA Paper 119465, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    4. Greiner, Romy, 2014. "Willingness of north Australian pastoralists and graziers to participate in contractual biodiversity conservation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165839, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Neustadt, Ilja & Zweifel, Peter, 2011. "Income redistribution: how to divide the pie?," MPRA Paper 35427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Ilja Neustadt & Peter Zweifel, 2010. "Is the Welfare State Sustainable? Experimental Evidence on Citizens’ Preferences for Redistribution," SOI - Working Papers 1003, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    7. De Menezes, Antonio Gomes & Vieira, J. C., 2008. "Willingness to pay for airline services attributes: evidence from a stated preferences choice game," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 39, pages 1-13.
    8. Yingjie Ding & Tao Fan & Huan Wang & Zhao Yang, 2024. "A Comparative Study of Bazaar Cultural Spaces in Central Asia and China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-22, October.
    9. Nikolina Dukic Samarzija & Andrea Arbula Blecich & Luka Samarzija, 2018. "The Paradigm Of Patient-Centered Care In The Public Health Decision-Making," Economic Thought and Practice, Department of Economics and Business, University of Dubrovnik, vol. 27(2), pages 503-516, december.
    10. Ilja Neustadt, 2011. "Do Religious Beliefs Explain Preferences for Income Redistribution? Experimental Evidence," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 57(4), pages 623-652, December.
    11. Pfarr Christian & Ulrich Volker, 2011. "Discrete-Choice-Experimente zur Ermittlung der Präferenzen für Umverteilung," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 62(3), pages 232-262, December.
    12. Kei Long Cheung & Ben F. M. Wijnen & Ilene L. Hollin & Ellen M. Janssen & John F. Bridges & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Mickael Hiligsmann, 2016. "Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(12), pages 1195-1209, December.
    13. Mansdotter, Anna & Lindholm, Lars & Ohman, Ann, 2004. "Women, men and public health--how the choice of normative theory affects resource allocation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 351-364, September.
    14. Kennedy Otieno, Pambo, 2013. "Analysis of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Fortified Sugar in Kenya," Research Theses 243455, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    15. Fitsum Dechasa & Feyera Senbeta & Dawit Diriba Guta, 2021. "Economic value of wetlands services in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 29-53, January.
    16. Carías Vega , Dora & Alpízar, Francisco, 2011. "Choice Experiments in Enviromental Impact Assessment: The Toro 3 Hydroelectric Project and the Recreo Verde Tourist Center in Costa Rica," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-04-efd, Resources for the Future.
    17. Garima Taneja & Barun Deb Pal & Pramod K. Joshi & Pramod K. Aggarwal & N. K. Tyagi, 2014. "Farmers’ Preferences for Climate-Smart Agriculture: An Assessment in the Indo-Gangetic Plain," Working Papers id:5806, eSocialSciences.
    18. repec:fpr:export:1337 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Rahel Renata Tanujaya & Chul-Yong Lee & JongRoul Woo & Sung-Yoon Huh & Min-Kyu Lee, 2020. "Quantifying Public Preferences for Community-Based Renewable Energy Projects in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, May.
    20. Taneja, Garima & Pal, Barun Deb & Joshi, Pramod Kumar & Aggarwal, Pramod & Tyagi, N.K., 2014. "Farmers’ preferences for climate-smart agriculture an assessment in the Indo-Gangetic plain:," IFPRI discussion papers 1337, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    21. repec:pra:mprapa:91766 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Villano, Renato & Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie) & Kewa, John & Irving, Donald, 2016. "Factors Affecting Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Good Quality Sweetpotato in Papua New Guinea," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 24, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    best-worst scaling; Croatia; preferences; screening; willingness to pay;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets

    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:aka:soceco:v:41:y:2019:i:4:p:433-447. 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: Kriston, Orsolya (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://akademiai.hu/ .

    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.