Borges, A.P. Reis, A. and Anjos, J. 2017. Willingness to pay for other individuals' healthcare expenditures. Public Health, Vol. 144, p. 64.
Mbachu, Chinyere Okoli, Chijioke Onwujekwe, Obinna and Enabulele, Fabian 2017. Willingness to pay for antiretroviral drugs among HIV and AIDS clients in south-east Nigeria. Health Expectations,
Drichoutis, Andreas C. Lusk, Jayson L. and Pappa, Valentina 2016. Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: A study of climate neutral foods. Food Policy, Vol. 61, p. 141.
Hollinghurst, Sandra Banks, Jonathan Bigwood, Lin Walter, Fiona M. Hamilton, Willie and Peters, Tim J. 2016. Using willingness-to-pay to establish patient preferences for cancer testing in primary care. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Vol. 16,
Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte 2016. The role of the payment vehicle in non-market valuations of a health care service: willingness-to-pay for an ambulance helicopter service. Health Economics, Policy and Law, Vol. 11, p. 1.
Rogowski, Wolf Payne, Katherine Schnell-Inderst, Petra Manca, Andrea Rochau, Ursula Jahn, Beate Alagoz, Oguzhan Leidl, Reiner and Siebert, Uwe 2015. Concepts of ‘Personalization’ in Personalized Medicine: Implications for Economic Evaluation. PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 33, p. 49.
Buchanan, James and Wordsworth, Sarah 2015. Welfarism Versus Extra-Welfarism: Can the Choice of Economic Evaluation Approach Impact on the Adoption Decisions Recommended by Economic Evaluation Studies?. PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 33, p. 571.
Shackley, Phil and Dixon, Simon 2014. THE RANDOM CARD SORT METHOD AND RESPONDENT CERTAINTY IN CONTINGENT VALUATION: AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF RANGE BIAS. Health Economics, Vol. 23, p. 1213.
Mentzakis, Emmanouil Ryan, Mandy and McNamee, Paul 2014. Modelling Heterogeneity and Uncertainty in Contingent Valuation: an Application to the Valuation of Informal Care. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 61, p. 1.
Robinson, Angela Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte Bacon, Philomena Baker, Rachel Pennington, Mark and Donaldson, Cam 2013. Estimating a WTP-based value of a QALY: The ‘chained’ approach. Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 92, p. 92.
Stachtiaris, Spiros Drichoutis, Andreas C. and Klonaris, Stathis 2013. Preference reversals in Contingent and Inferred valuation methods. European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 40, p. 379.
Eden, Martin Payne, Katherine Combs, Ryan M Hall, Georgina McAllister, Marion and Black, Graeme C M 2013. Valuing the benefits of genetic testing for retinitis pigmentosa: a pilot application of the contingent valuation method. British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 97, p. 1051.
Danyliv, Andriy Pavlova, Milena Gryga, Irena and Groot, Wim 2013. Willingness to pay for physician services at a primary contact in Ukraine: results of a contingent valuation study. BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 13,
Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte 2013. Using the Stated Preference Technique for Eliciting Valuations: The Role of the Payment Vehicle. PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 31, p. 853.
Hansen, K. S. Pedrazzoli, D. Mbonye, A. Clarke, S. Cundill, B. Magnussen, P. and Yeung, S. 2013. Willingness-to-pay for a rapid malaria diagnostic test and artemisinin-based combination therapy from private drug shops in Mukono district, Uganda. Health Policy and Planning, Vol. 28, p. 185.
Dodge, Kenneth A. and Mandel, Adam D. 2012. Building Evidence for Evidence-Based Policy Making. Criminology & Public Policy, Vol. 11, p. 525.
Newall, Anthony T. Jit, Mark and Beutels, Philippe 2012. Economic Evaluations of Childhood Influenza Vaccination. PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 30, p. 647.
Bobinac, Ana van Exel, N. Job A. Rutten, Frans F.H. and 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, Vol. 31, p. 158.
Baker, Rachel Chilton, Sue Donaldson, Cam Jones-Lee, Michael Lancsar, Emily Mason, Helen Metcalf, Hugh Pennington, Mark and Wildman, John 2011. Searchers vs surveyors in estimating the monetary value of a QALY: resolving a nasty dilemma for NICE. Health Economics, Policy and Law, Vol. 6, p. 435.
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.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 17th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.