Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T01:01:39.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How do patients receiving radiotherapy in a Dutch hospital value their time? A contingent valuation study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2015

France Portrait ,
Marjolein Bakker ,
Ben Slotman ,
Amiram Gafni  and
Bernard van den Berg
France Portrait*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Marjolein Bakker
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ben Slotman
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Amiram Gafni
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Bernard van den Berg
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, Yorkshire, United Kingdom
*
Correspondence to: France Portrait, Institute of Health Sciences, VU University, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel: 00-31-20-5982545; E-mail: f.r.m.portrait@vu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

Cancer patients spend a lot of time receiving medical care. Our study investigates patients’ preferences regarding reducing the time involved in non-palliative radiotherapy care.

Methods

A total of 142 Dutch patients were included in our study. Using a contingent valuation survey, we measured the proportion of patients who preferred to reduce their patients’ time, splitting it into five different categories, and, for those who did, whether and how much they were willing to pay for this to happen.

Results

About 50% of the patients preferred to reduce their time waiting for admission by 1 week and their travel time by half; 20 and 62% wanted to reduce their waiting time by half and their treatment time from 20 to 5 minutes, respectively; 36% preferred to be treated 7 instead of 5 days a week; and 20% of those wishing to reduce their patients’ time were willing to pay, and their mean willingness to pay (WTP) ranged from £0·32 to £18·1 per hour’s reduction of their time.

Conclusion

Half of the patients seem to assess their patients’ time as reasonable. The other half preferred to reduce it, but only about 20% of them were willing to pay for it to happen and their mean WTP was low.

Keywords

contingent valuation methodpatients’ preferencespatients’ timeradiotherapy
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 152 - 161
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

1.Yabroff, K R, Davis, W W, Lamont, E Bet al. Patient time costs associated with cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 14–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Yabroff, K R, Kim, Y. Time costs associated with informal caregiving for cancer survivors. Cancer 2009; 115 (18): 4362–4373.Google Scholar
3.Yabroff, K R, Guy, G P, Ekwueme, D Uet al. Annual patient time costs associated with medical care among cancer survivors in the United States. Med Care 2014; 52 (7): 594–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.De Serpa, A. A theory of the economics of time. Econ J 1971; 81: 828–846.Google Scholar
5.Finlayson, S R, Birkmeyer, J D, Tosteson, A N, Nease, R F. Patient preferences for location of care: implications for regionalization. Med Care 1999; 37 (2): 204–209.Google Scholar
6.Pini, A, Sarafis, P, Malliarou, Met al. Assessment of patient satisfaction of the quality of health care provided by outpatient services in an oncology hospital. Global J Health Sci 2014; 6 (5): 377–397.Google Scholar
7.Jonas, D E, Russel, L B, Sandler, R S, Chou, J, Pignone, M. Value of patient time invested in the colonoscopy screening process: time requirements for colonoscopy study. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 56–65.Google Scholar
8.Jonas, D E, Russell, L B, Chou, J, Pignone, M. Willingness-to-pay to avoid the time spent and discomfort associated with screening colonoscopy. Health Econ 2010; 19 (10): 1193–1211.Google Scholar
9.Russell, L B. Completing costs, patients’ time. Med Care 2009; 47: S89–S93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Propper, C. Contingent valuation of time spent on the National Health Services lists. Econ J 1990; 100: 193–199.Google Scholar
11.Johannesson, M, Johansson, P O, Söderqvist, T. Time spent on waiting lists for medical care: an insurance approach. J Health Econ 1999; 17: 627–644.Google Scholar
12.Borisova, N N, Goodman, A C. Measuring the value of time for methadone maintenance clients: willingness to pay, willingness to accept, and the wage rate. Health Econ 2003; 12 (4): 323–334.Google Scholar
13.Van den Berg, B, Gafni, A, Portrait, F. Development of a method to monetarily value patient time. CHE Working Paper No, 90, CHE, 2013, York, Yorkshire, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
14.O’Brien, B, Gafni, A. When do the ‘dollars’ make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 288–299.Google Scholar
15.Schut, F T, Van de Ven, W.P.M.M. Rationing and competition in the Dutch health care system. Health Econ 2005; 14 (1): 59–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Mitchell, R C, Carson, T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington: Resources for the Future, RFF Press, 1989.Google Scholar
17.Luce, B R, Manning, W G, Siegel, J E, Lipscomb, J. Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold, M R, Siegel, J, Russell, L B, Weinstein, M C (eds). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health and Medicine. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996: 173–216.Google Scholar
18.Wyatt, R M, Beddoe, A H, Dale, R G. The effects of delays in radiotherapy treatment on tumour control. Phys Med Biol 2003; 48: 139.Google Scholar
19.Visser, M R, van Lanschot, J J, van der Velden, J, Kloek, J J, Gouma, D J, Sprangers, M A. Quality of life in newly diagnosed cancer patients waiting for surgery is seriously impaired. J Surg Oncol 2006; 93 (7): 571–577.Google Scholar
20.Johannesson, M, Johansson, P O, Kristriim, B, Gerdtham, U G. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy—further results. J Health Econ 1993; 12: 95–108.Google Scholar
21.Blumenschein, K, Blomquist, G C, Johannesson, M, Horn, N, Freeman, P. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Econ J 2008; 118: 114–137.Google Scholar
22.Crossley, T F, Kennedy, S. The reliability of self-assessed health status. J Health Econ 2002; 21 (4): 643–658.Google Scholar
23.Dolan, P. Modelling valuations for Euroqol health status. Med Care 1997; 35 (11): 1095–1108.Google Scholar
24.Oken, M M, Creech, R H, Tormey, D Cet al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982; 5: 649–655.Google Scholar
25.Brouha, X D R, Op De Coul, B, Terhaard, C H J, Hordijk, G J. Does waiting time for radiotherapy affect local control of T1N0M0 glottic laryngeal carcinoma? Clin Otolaryngol 2000; 25 (3): 215–218.Google Scholar
26.Waaijer, A, Terhaard, C H, Dehnad, Het al. Waiting times for radiotherapy: consequences of volume increase for the TCP in oropharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol 2003; 66 (3): 271–276.Google Scholar