TY - JOUR
T1 - Willingness to pay for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment
T2 - a systematic review
AU - Ben-Aharon, Omer
AU - Iskrov, Georgi
AU - Sagy, Iftach
AU - Greenberg, Dan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2023/1/1
Y1 - 2023/1/1
N2 - Introduction: Willingness to pay (WTP) studies examine the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for a specified health intervention, and can be used to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Our objectives were to assess how people value cancer-related interventions, identify differences in the methodologies used, and review the trends in studies’ publication. Areas covered: We extracted PubMed and EconLit articles published in 1997–2020 that reported WTP for cancer-related interventions, characterized the methodological differences and summarized each intervention’s mean and median WTP values. We reviewed 1,331 abstracts and identified 103 relevant WTP studies, of which 37 (36%) focused on treatment followed by screening (26), prevention (21), diagnosis (7) and other interventions (12). The methods used to determine WTP values were primarily discrete-choice questions (n = 54, 52%), bidding games (15), payment cards (12) and open-ended questions (12). We found a wide variation in WTP reported values ranged from below $100 to over $20,000. Expert opinion: The WTP literature on oncology interventions has grown rapidly. There is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the type of interventions and diseases assessed, the respondents’ characteristics, and the study methodologies. This points to the need to establish international guidelines for best practices in this field.
AB - Introduction: Willingness to pay (WTP) studies examine the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for a specified health intervention, and can be used to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Our objectives were to assess how people value cancer-related interventions, identify differences in the methodologies used, and review the trends in studies’ publication. Areas covered: We extracted PubMed and EconLit articles published in 1997–2020 that reported WTP for cancer-related interventions, characterized the methodological differences and summarized each intervention’s mean and median WTP values. We reviewed 1,331 abstracts and identified 103 relevant WTP studies, of which 37 (36%) focused on treatment followed by screening (26), prevention (21), diagnosis (7) and other interventions (12). The methods used to determine WTP values were primarily discrete-choice questions (n = 54, 52%), bidding games (15), payment cards (12) and open-ended questions (12). We found a wide variation in WTP reported values ranged from below $100 to over $20,000. Expert opinion: The WTP literature on oncology interventions has grown rapidly. There is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the type of interventions and diseases assessed, the respondents’ characteristics, and the study methodologies. This points to the need to establish international guidelines for best practices in this field.
KW - Cancer
KW - contingent valuation
KW - discrete choice experiment
KW - oncology
KW - willingness to pay
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85147201706&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/14737167.2023.2167713
DO - 10.1080/14737167.2023.2167713
M3 - Review article
C2 - 36635646
AN - SCOPUS:85147201706
SN - 1473-7167
VL - 23
SP - 281
EP - 295
JO - Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
JF - Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
IS - 3
ER -