IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v44y1997i3p371-380.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using willingness to pay to value alternative models of antenatal care

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan, Mandy
  • Ratcliffe, Julie
  • Tucker, Janet

Abstract

Recent years have seen the development of different models of antenatal care, especially for low risk women. More specifically, there has been a move for more general practitioner and midwifery involvement in such care. Given the current changes that are taking place in the provision of antenatal care, it is becoming increasingly important to carry out economic evaluations of alternative models of care. This paper applies the economic instrument of willingness to pay to assess the benefits of two alternative forms of antenatal care: general practitioner/midwife routine led care versus obstetrician led care. The results suggest a willingness to pay of £2500 for antenatal care, with no significant difference between the types of care provided. It is concluded that before firm policy conclusions can be reached, further studies should be undertaken to address methodological issues around the willingness to pay technique.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan, Mandy & Ratcliffe, Julie & Tucker, Janet, 1997. "Using willingness to pay to value alternative models of antenatal care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 371-380, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:44:y:1997:i:3:p:371-380
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(96)00154-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Phil Shackley & Cam Donaldson, 2000. "Willingness to pay for publicly-financed health care: how should we use the numbers?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(15), pages 2015-2021.
    2. F. Reed Johnson & William H. Desvousges & Melissa C. Ruby & David Stieb & Paul De Civita, 1998. "Eliciting Stated Health Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(2_suppl), pages 57-67, April.
    3. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    4. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    5. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
    6. Sherman Folland, 2006. "Value of life and behavior toward health risks: an interpretation of social capital," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 159-171, February.
    7. Debby Helvoort-Postulart & Carmen Dirksen & Alfons Kessels & Jos Engelshoven & M. Myriam Hunink, 2009. "A comparison between willingness to pay and willingness to give up time," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 81-91, February.
    8. David Christafore & Susane Leguizamon, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Hospital Access in Areas with High Concentrations of Blacks," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 45(1), pages 87-104, Spring.
    9. Jacoline Bouvy & Just Weemers & Huub Schellekens & Marc Koopmanschap, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Adverse Drug Event Regulatory Actions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(11), pages 963-975, November.
    10. Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998. "Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326, June.
    11. Shackley, Phil & Donaldson, Cam, 2002. "Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care?: New evidence from using a 'marginal' approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 971-991, November.
    12. Leguizamon, Susane & Christafore, David, 2014. "Racial Differences in Willingness to Pay for Hospital Access," MPRA Paper 55926, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Shinji Takemura & Takashi Ohida & Tomofumi Sone & Takashi Fukuda & Yukie Takemura, 2005. "Influences of the absence of random assignment of bids on estimating willingness to pay using a discrete‐choice question," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 209-213, February.
    14. Ryan, Mandy & San Miguel, Fernando, 2000. "Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 305-317, June.
    15. Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley & Mona Abdalla, 1997. "Using Willingness To Pay To Value Close Substitutes: Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis Revisited," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 145-159, March.

    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:eee:socmed:v:44:y:1997:i:3:p:371-380. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.