IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v5y2010i01p91-111_99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contingent valuation: what needs to be done?

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, Richard D.
  • Sach, Tracey H.

Abstract

Contingent valuation (CV) has been argued to have theoretical advantages over other approaches for benefit valuation used by health economists. Yet, in reality, the technique appears not to have realised these advantages when applied to health-care issues, such that its influence in decision-making at national levels has been non-existent within the health sector. This is not a result of a lack of methodological work in the area, which has continued to flourish. Rather, it is a result of such activities being undertaken in a rather uncoordinated and unsystematic fashion, leading CV to be akin to a ‘ship without a sail’. This paper utilises a systematic review of the CV literature in health to illustrate some important points concerning the conduct of CV studies, before providing a comment on what the remaining policy and research priorities are for the technique, and proposing a guideline for such studies. It is hoped that this will initiate some wider and rigorous debate on the future of the CV technique in order to make it seaworthy, give it direction and provide the right momentum.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, Richard D. & Sach, Tracey H., 2010. "Contingent valuation: what needs to be done?," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 91-111, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:5:y:2010:i:01:p:91-111_99
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133109990016/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    2. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2014. "Modelling Heterogeneity and Uncertainty in Contingent Valuation: an Application to the Valuation of Informal Care," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 61(1), pages 1-25, February.
    3. Phil Shackley & Simon Dixon, 2014. "The Random Card Sort Method And Respondent Certainty In Contingent Valuation: An Exploratory Investigation Of Range Bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(10), pages 1213-1223, October.
    4. T. Lehnert & O. H. Günther & A. Hajek & S. G. Riedel-Heller & H. H. König, 2018. "Preferences for home- and community-based long-term care services in Germany: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1213-1223, December.
    5. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Pappa, Valentina, 2016. "Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: A study of climate neutral foods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 141-155.
    6. S. T. Abebe & A. B. Dagnew & V. G. Zeleke & G. Z. Eshetu & G. T. Cirella, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for Watershed Management," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Anthony Newall & Mark Jit & Philippe Beutels, 2012. "Economic Evaluations of Childhood Influenza Vaccination," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 647-660, August.
    8. Jesús Martín-Fernández & Gloria Ariza-Cardiel & Luz Mª Peña-Longobardo & Elena Polentinos-Castro & Juan Oliva-Moreno & Ana Isabel Gil-Lacruz & Héctor Medina-Palomino & Isabel del Cura-González, 2017. "“Gaining or losing”: The importance of the perspective in primary care health services valuation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Bobinac, Ana & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "GET MORE, PAY MORE? An elaborate test of construct validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates obtained through contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 158-168.
    10. Wolf Rogowski & Katherine Payne & Petra Schnell-Inderst & Andrea Manca & Ursula Rochau & Beate Jahn & Oguzhan Alagoz & Reiner Leidl & Uwe Siebert, 2015. "Concepts of ‘Personalization’ in Personalized Medicine: Implications for Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 49-59, January.
    11. Massarutto, Antonio & Roder, G. & Troiano, S., 2022. "Better safe than sorry? Stated preferences and the precautionary principle for securing drinking water quality in an Italian district," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    12. Robinson, Angela & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Bacon, Philomena & Baker, Rachel & Pennington, Mark & Donaldson, Cam, 2013. "Estimating a WTP-based value of a QALY: The ‘chained’ approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 92-104.

    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:cup:hecopl:v:5:y:2010:i:01:p:91-111_99. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    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.