IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/29770.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Internet “Value of Health” panel: recruitment, participation and compliance

Author

Listed:
  • Stein, K
  • Dyer, M
  • Crabb, T
  • Milne, R
  • Round, A
  • Ratcliffe, J
  • Brazier, J

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To recruit a panel of members of the public to provide preferences in response to the needs of economic evaluators over the course of a year. METHODS A sample of members of the UK general public was recruited in a stratified random sample from the electoral roll and familiarised with the standard gamble method of preference elicitation using an internet based tool. Recruitment (proportion of people approached who were trained), participation (defined as the proportion of people trained who provided any preferences) and compliance (defined as the proportion of preference tasks which were completed) were described. The influence of covariates on these outcomes was investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS A panel of 112 people was recruited. The eventual panel reflected national demographics to some extent, but recruitment from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and among ethnic minority communities was low. 23% of people who were approached (n= 5,320) responded to the invitation to take part in the study, and 24% of respondents (n=1,215) were willing to participate. However, eventual recruitment rates, following training, were low (2.1% of those approached), although significantly higher in Exeter than other cities. 18 sets of health state descriptions were presented to the panel over 14 months. 74% of panel members praticipated in at least one valuation task. Socioeconomic and marital status were significantly associated with participation. Compliance varied from 3% to 100%, with the average per set of health state descriptions being 41%. Compliance was higher in retired people but otherwise no significant predictors were identified. CONCLUSIONS It is feasible to recruit and train a panel of members of the general public to express preferences on a wide range of health states using the internet in response to the needs of analysts. In order to provide a sample which reflects the demographics of the general public, and capitalise on the increasing opportunities for the use of the internet in this field, over-sampling in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and among ethnic minority communities is necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • Stein, K & Dyer, M & Crabb, T & Milne, R & Round, A & Ratcliffe, J & Brazier, J, 2006. "An Internet “Value of Health” panel: recruitment, participation and compliance," MPRA Paper 29770, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:29770
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29770/1/MPRA_paper_29770.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter A. Ubel & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel, 2000. "Societal value, the person trade‐off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 127-136, March.
    2. Paul Dolan, 1999. "Whose Preferences Count?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 482-486, October.
    3. Buckingham, Ken, 1993. "A note on HYE (healthy years equivalent)," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 301-309, October.
    4. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452, May.
    5. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    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. Thébaut, Clémence, 2013. "Dealing with moral dilemma raised by adaptive preferences in health technology assessment: The example of growth hormones and bilateral cochlear implants," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 102-109.
    2. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    3. Paul Dolan & Daniel Kahneman, 2008. "Interpretations Of Utility And Their Implications For The Valuation Of Health," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 215-234, January.
    4. Ogorevc, Marko & Murovec, Nika & Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos & Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, 2019. "Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 166-172.
    5. Huynh, Elisabeth & Coast, Joanna & Rose, John & Kinghorn, Philip & Flynn, Terry, 2017. "Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 114-128.
    6. Begoña Álvarez & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, 2009. "Patients’ self-interest bias: Empirical evidence from a priority-setting experiment," Working Papers 0903, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    7. P. Wang & E. Tai & J. Thumboo & Hubertus Vrijhoef & Nan Luo, 2014. "Does Diabetes Have an Impact on Health-State Utility? A Study of Asians in Singapore," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 329-337, September.
    8. Álvarez, Begoña & Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva, 2011. "Patients' self-interested preferences: Empirical evidence from a priority setting experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1317-1324, April.
    9. Bruce R. Schackman & Sue J. Goldie & Kenneth A. Freedberg & Elena Losina & John Brazier & Milton C. Weinstein, 2002. "Comparison of Health State Utilities Using Community and Patient Preference Weights Derived from a Survey of Patients with HIV/AIDS," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1), pages 27-38, February.
    10. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    12. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    13. Mauskopf, Josephine & Chirila, Costel & Birt, Julie & Boye, Kristina S. & Bowman, Lee, 2013. "Drug reimbursement recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Have they impacted the National Health Service budget?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-59.
    14. E. Stolk & M. Poley, 2005. "Criteria for determining a basic health services package," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 2-7, March.
    15. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    16. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    17. Kisser, Agnes & Tüchler, Heinz & Erdös, Judit & Wild, Claudia, 2016. "Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(8), pages 903-912.
    18. Olena Hankivsk & Jane Friesen & Colleen Varcoe & Fiona MacPhail & Lorraine Greaves & Charmaine Spencer, 2004. "Expanding Economic Costing in Health Care: Values, Gender and Diversity," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 30(3), pages 257-282, September.
    19. Chris Sampson & Bernarda Zamora & Sam Watson & John Cairns & Kalipso Chalkidou & Patricia Cubi-Molla & Nancy Devlin & Borja García-Lorenzo & Dyfrig A. Hughes & Ashley A. Leech & Adrian Towse, 2022. "Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 651-667, September.
    20. Appleby, John & Devlin, Nancy & Parkin, David & Buxton, Martin & Chalkidou, Kalipso, 2009. "Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 239-245, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    utility; Internet; public; survey;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    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:pra:mprapa:29770. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.