Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T17:10:33.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Informing decision makers about public preferences for different modalities of cancer treatment in the Rhône–Alps region in France

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2023

Jennifer Margier Open the ORCID record for Jennifer Margier [Opens in a new window] ,
Amiram Gafni  and
Nora Moumjid
Jennifer Margier*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Health Economic Evaluation Service Hospices Civils de Lyon RESHAPE – INSERM U1290, F-69008 Lyon, France
Amiram Gafni
Affiliation:
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
Nora Moumjid
Affiliation:
Centre Léon Bérard, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, F-69008 Lyon, France
*
*Author for correspondence: Jennifer Margier, E-mail: jennifer.margier@chu-lyon.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Alternative options to hospital care like home care or local health centers (LHCs) are being advocated. However, no study has measured citizens’ preferences (who will finance these services via taxation) for these options.

Objectives

We measured (i) citizens’ preferences for these services, that is, respondents stated where they would like to get the treatment; (ii) the strength of their preference.

Methods

A computerized survey composed of (i) a decision aid to inform respondents about the three options; (ii) three scenarios, from light-to-heavy care, that respondents should rank from the most to the least preferred option of care. (iii) a contingent valuation survey (CVS) to assess how much respondents were willing to pay for their preferred option (except for hospital care if chosen, because it is the default option and free). (iv) a socio-demographic questionnaire.

Results

Data were collected from a representative sample of citizens living in the Rhône–Alps Region (n = 800). The heavier the care was, the more respondents preferred hospital care. Willingness to pay for additional taxation per household/month varied from €13.9 for light care in LHC to €19.1 for heavy home care. The small number of protesting respondents and outliers, and the close correlation between preferences, income, and WTP supports the validity of the CVS.

Conclusion

In France, for cancer, not all citizens would prefer to be treated at home rather than in a hospital. Only less than a quarter would prefer LHC. These results show the mismatch between public health policies and the citizens’ preferences.

Keywords

contingent valuationwillingness to payhome carepreferencecancerhospitalpublic decision-making
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , 2023 , e5
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

World Health Organisation. [Internet] Cancer. [cited 2020 Nov 19]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer.Google Scholar
HAS. Conditions du développement de la chimiothérapie en hospitalisation à domicile : analyse économique et organisationnelle. HAS/Service évaluation économique et santé publique. 2015 Jan.Google Scholar
Corbett, M, Heirs, M, Rose, M, et al. The delivery of chemotherapy at home: An evidence synthesis [Internet]. Southampton, UK: NIHR Journals Library; [cited 2018 Nov 15]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285513/.Google Scholar
Leff, B, Burton, L, Mader, S, et al. Satisfaction with hospital at home care. J Am Geriat Soc. 2006;54:1355–1363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IGAS. Hospitalisation à domicile (HAD). Inspection générale des affaires sociales IGAS; 2010 Nov. Report No.: RM2010-109P.Google Scholar
Buthion, V. DOveHO : Structures de proximité versus plateaux techniques en cancérologie [Internet]. Université Lumière Lyon 2; Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1; [cited 2017 Sep 25]. Available from: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01133371.Google Scholar
Shepperd, S, Gonçalves-Bradley, DC, Straus, SE, Wee, B. Hospital at home: Home-based end-of-life care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD009231.Google ScholarPubMed
Lüthi, F, Fucina, N, Divorne, N, et al. Home care--A safe and attractive alternative to inpatient administration of intensive chemotherapies. Support Care Cancer. 2012; 20:575–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HAS. Haute Autorité de Santé - Chimiothérapie en hospitalisation à domicile : une pratique à développer. [cited 2017 Sep 25]. Available from: www.has-sante.fr; https://has-sante.fr/jcms/pprd_2974354/en/chimiotherapie-en-hospitalisation-a-domicile-une-pratique-a-developper.Google Scholar
Margier, J, Gafni, A, Moumjid, N. Cancer care at home or in local health centres versus in hospital: Public policy goals and patients’ preferences in the Rhône-Alps region in France. Health Policy. 2021; 125:213–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donaldson, C. Eliciting patients’ values by use of ‘willingness to pay’: Letting the theory drive the method. Health Expect. 2001; 4:180–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, RD, Sach, TH. Contingent valuation: What needs to be done? Health Econ Policy Law. 2010; 5:91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RD. Contingent valuation in health care: Does it matter how the “good” is described? Health Econ. 2008;17:607–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Syrowatka, A, Krömker, D, Meguerditchian, AN, Tamblyn, R. Features of computer-based decision aids: Systematic review, thematic synthesis, and meta-analyses. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18:e20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G, O’Connor, A, Stacey, D, et al. International patient decision aids standards (IPDAS) collaboration. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aid: Online international Delphi consensus process. Br Med J. 2006;333:417–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cummings, RG, Brookshire, DS, Bishop, RC, Arrow, KJ. Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman & Littlefield Pub Incorporated. 1986.Google Scholar
Aadland, D, Caplan, AJ. Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. Am J Agric Econ. 2003;85:492–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, JA, Gallet, CA. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ Resour Econ. 2001;20(3):241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, JL. Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ. 2003;85:840–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, IJ, Covey, J, Loomes, G. Valuing risk reductions: Testing for range biases in payment card and random card sorting methods. CSERGE Working Paper EDM. [cited 2015 Aug 6]. Available from: http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/80296.Google Scholar
Gyrd-Hansen, D, Jensen, ML, Kjaer, T. Framing the willingness-to-pay question: Impact on response patterns and mean willingness to pay. Health Econ. 2014;23:550–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, MD, Blamey, RK, Bennett, JW. Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ Resour Econ. 2000;16:407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, RC, Carson, RT. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future. Washington, D.C.: Routledge; 1989, p. 496.Google Scholar
Champ, PA, Bishop, RC, Brown, TC, McCollum, DW. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manag. 1997;33:151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, RC, Carson, RT. An experiment in determining willingness to pay for national water quality improvements. In: Draft report to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency; 1981.Google Scholar
Hanemann, WM. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ. 1984;66:332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahieu, PA, Riera, P, Giergiczny, M. Determinants of willingness-to-pay for water pollution abatement: A point and interval data payment card application. J Environ Manage. 2012;108:49–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ethier, RG, Poe, GL, Schulze, WD, Clark, J. A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Econ. 2000;76:54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poe, GL, Clark, JE, Rondeau, D, Schulze, WD. Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ. 2002;23:105–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, AM. The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods. Resources for the Future. New York: Routledge; 1992. [cited 2017 Oct 7] Available from: http://www.sidalc.net/cgi-bin/wxis.exe/?IsisScript=iicacr.xis&method=post&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion=mfn=029160.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, J, Liebe, U. Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: A meta-study. Ecol Econ. 2010;70:366–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blayac, T, Clément, V, Mercier, G. Hospitalisation conventionnelle vs prise en charge à domicile: Analyse des préférences individuelles par une expérience en choix discret. [cited 2017 Sep 11] Available from: http://www.lameta.univ-montp1.fr/Documents/DR2014-14.pdf.Google Scholar
Alberini, A, Boyle, K, Welsh, M. Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag. 2003;45:40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corso, PS, Hammitt, JK, Graham, JD. Valuing mortality-risk reduction: Using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertain. 2001;23:165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J. 1990;100:464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D, Tversky, A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol. 1984;39:341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RD. It’s not just what you do, it’s the way that you do it: The effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. Health Econ. 2006;15:281–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voltaire, L, Donfouet, HPP, Pirrone, C. Testing for payment card framing effect on contingent willingness to pay [cited 2015 Aug 6]. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Louinord_Voltaire/publication/275098480_Testing_for_Payment_Card_Framing_effect_on_Contingent_Willingness_to_Pay/links/553278980cf20ea0a073dcce.pdf.Google Scholar
Andersen, S, Harrison, GW, Lau, MI, Rutström, EE. Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Exp Econ. 2006;9:383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voltaire, L, Donfouet, HPP, Pirrone, C, Larzillière, A. Respondent uncertainty and ordering effect on willingness to pay for salt marsh conservation in the brest roadstead (France). Ecol Econ. 2017; 137:47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, KG, Brackenbury, L, Quackenbush, M, Buras, M, Brown, SA, A-SIDE, Price J.: Video simulation of teen alcohol and marijuana use contexts. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2014; 75:953–957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bateman, IJ, Cole, M, Cooper, P, et al. On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. J Environ Econ Manag. 2004;47:71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M, Watson, V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2009;18:389–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijlenga, D, Bonsel, GJ, Birnie, E. Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: Comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes. Health Econ. 2011;20:1392–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, GB. Your money or your health: Time preferences and trading money for health. Med Decis Making. 2002; 22:410–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sever, I, Verbič, M, Sever, EK. Estimating willingness-to-pay for health care: A discrete choice experiment accounting for non-attendance to the cost attribute. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019; 25:843–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R, Currie, GR, Donaldson, C. What needs to be done in contingent valuation: have Smith and Sach missed the boat? Health Econ Policy Law. 2010; 5:113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, RD, Sach, TH. Contingent valuation: has the debate begun? Health Econ Policy Law. 2010; 5:133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, RD, Sach, TH. Contingent valuation: (Still) on the road to nowhere? Health Econ. 2009; 18:863–866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Margier et al. supplementary material

Margier et al. supplementary material

Download Margier et al. supplementary material(File)
File 36.1 KB