IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v12y2003i10p879-884.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: Testing for process utility

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Birch
  • Joy Melnikow
  • Miriam Kuppermann

Abstract

Economic evaluation generally limits outcome measurement to the valuation of health outcomes produced by interventions without considering the impact of processes on utility. We test for process utility by comparing utility measurements for alternative approaches to managing abnormal Pap smears in the context of a fixed outcome. The impact of health care interventions on individual well‐being was not confined to health outcomes. Aggressive and conservative follow‐up approaches were associated with statistically significant differences in utilities. We also found that relative preferences among different processes may depend on the particular circumstances or pathologies being considered. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Birch & Joy Melnikow & Miriam Kuppermann, 2003. "Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: Testing for process utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 879-884, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:10:p:879-884
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.783
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.783
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.783?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mooney, Gavin, 1998. ""Communitarian claims" as an ethical basis for allocating health care resources," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1171-1180, November.
    2. Culyer, A J, 1989. "The Normative Economics of Health Care Finance and Provision," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 5(1), pages 34-58, Spring.
    3. Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 1997. "Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 699-707, March.
    4. Anthony J. Culyer (ed.), 1991. "The Economics Of Health," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, volume 0, number 541.
    5. Mooney, Gavin & Lange, Mette, 1993. "Ante-natal screening: What constitutes 'benefit'?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 873-878, October.
    6. S Birch & G Stoddart, 1991. "Incentives to Be Healthy: An Economic Model of Health-related Behaviour," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 24, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ryan, Mandy & Kinghorn, Philip & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Francis, Jill J., 2014. "Valuing patients' experiences of healthcare processes: Towards broader applications of existing methods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 194-203.
    2. Tianviwat, Sukanya & Chongsuvivatwong, Virasakdi & Birch, Stephen, 2008. "Prevention versus cure: Measuring parental preferences for sealants and fillings as treatments for childhood caries in Southern Thailand," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 64-71, April.
    3. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Culyer, Anthony J. & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H., 2008. "Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 325-338, March.
    4. Richard Abreu Lourenco & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 347-362, March.
    5. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Exel, N. Job A. van & Berg, Bernard van den & Bos, Geertruidis A.M. van den & Koopmanschap, Marc A., 2005. "Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 85-99, September.
    6. Katherine Payne & Marion McAllister & Linda M. Davies, 2013. "Valuing The Economic Benefits Of Complex Interventions: When Maximising Health Is Not Sufficient," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 258-271, March.
    7. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 2006. "Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): The silence of the lambda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(9), pages 2091-2100, May.
    8. Kirsten Howard & Glenn Salkeld & Kirsten McCaffery & Les Irwig, 2008. "HPV triage testing or repeat Pap smear for the management of atypical squamous cells (ASCUS) on Pap smear: is there evidence of process utility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 593-605, May.
    9. Lin Li & J L (Hans) Severens & Olena Mandrik, 2019. "Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Lidia Engel & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Conceptualising ‘Benefits Beyond Health’ in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1383-1395, December.
    11. Sukanya Tianviwat & Virasakdi Chongsuvivatwong & Stephen Birch, 2008. "Different dental care setting: does income matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 109-118, January.

    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. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    2. Richard Cookson, 2005. "QALYs and the capability approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(8), pages 817-829, August.
    3. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    4. Garber, Alan M. & Phelps, Charles E., 1997. "Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-31, February.
    5. Weinstein, Milton C. & Manning, Willard Jr., 1997. "Theoretical issues in cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 121-128, February.
    6. Ruben Andreas Sakowsky, 2021. "Disentangling the welfarism/extra‐welfarism distinction: Towards a more fine‐grained categorization," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 2307-2311, September.
    7. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Culyer, Anthony J. & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H., 2008. "Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 325-338, March.
    8. Hansen, B. O. & Hougaard, J. L. & Keiding, H. & Osterdal, L. P., 2004. "On the possibility of a bridge between CBA and CEA: comments on a paper by Dolan and Edlin," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 887-898, September.
    9. Culyer, Anthony J. & Evans, Robert G., 1996. "Mark Pauly on welfare economics: Normative rabbits from positive hats," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 243-251, April.
    10. Philippe Batifoulier & John Latsis & Jacques Merchiers, 2010. "Les priorités de la prise en charge financière des soins. Une approche par la philosophie du besoin," EconomiX Working Papers 2010-2, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    11. Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 2003. "Economics and the evaluation of health care programmes: generalisability of methods and implications for generalisability of results," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 207-219, May.
    12. Coast, Joanna, 2009. "Maximisation in extra-welfarism: A critique of the current position in health economics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 786-792, September.
    13. Kirsten Howard & Glenn Salkeld & Kirsten McCaffery & Les Irwig, 2008. "HPV triage testing or repeat Pap smear for the management of atypical squamous cells (ASCUS) on Pap smear: is there evidence of process utility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 593-605, May.
    14. Kalipso Chalkidou & Anthony Culyer & Bhash Naidoo & Peter Littlejohns, 2008. "Cost‐effective public health guidance: asking questions from the decision‐maker's viewpoint," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 441-448, March.
    15. Jacco Thijssen, 2007. "Ramsey Waits: A Computational Study on General Equilibrium Pricing of Derivative Securities," Discussion Papers 07/16, Department of Economics, University of York.
    16. Brouwer, Werner B. F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A., 2000. "On the economic foundations of CEA. Ladies and gentlemen, take your positions!," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 439-459, July.
    17. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    18. Gravelle, Hugh & Siciliani, Luigi, 2008. "Ramsey waits: Allocating public health service resources when there is rationing by waiting," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1143-1154, September.
    19. Chris Skedgel & Allan Wailoo & Ron Akehurst, 2015. "Societal Preferences for Distributive Justice in the Allocation of Health Care Resources," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 94-105, January.
    20. Katherine Payne & Marion McAllister & Linda M. Davies, 2013. "Valuing The Economic Benefits Of Complex Interventions: When Maximising Health Is Not Sufficient," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 258-271, March.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:10:p:879-884. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.