| Title |
Contingent Valuation Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Health Economic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
HSS Journal®, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11420-018-9610-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benedict U. Nwachukwu, Claire D. Eliasberg, Kamran S. Hamid, Michael C. Fu, Bernard R. Bach, Answorth A. Allen, Todd J. Albert |
| Abstract |
A greater emphasis on providing high-value orthopaedic interventions has resulted in increased health economic reporting. The contingent-valuation method (CVM) is used to determine consumer valuation of the benefits provided by healthcare interventions. CVM is an important value-based health economic tool that is underutilized in orthopaedic surgery. The purpose of this study was to (1) identify previously published CVM studies in the orthopaedic literature, (2) assess the methodologies used for CVM research, and (3) understand how CVM has been used in the orthopaedic cost-benefit analysis framework. A systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE database was performed to compile CVM studies. Search terms incorporated the phrase willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) in combination with orthopaedic clinical key terms. Study methodology was appraised using previously defined empirical and conceptual criteria for CVM studies. Of the 160 studies retrieved, 22 (13.8%) met our inclusion criteria. The economics of joint arthroplasty (n = 6, 27.3%) and non-operative osteoarthritis care (n = 4, 18.2%) were the most common topics. Most studies used CVM for pricing and/or demand forecasting (n = 16, 72.7%); very few studies used CVM for program evaluation (n = 6). WTP was used in all included studies, and one study used both WTP and WTA. Otherwise, there was little consistency among included studies in terms of CVM methodology. Open-ended questioning was used by only ten studies (45.5%), a significant number of studies did not perform a sensitivity analysis (n = 9, 40.9%), and none of the studies accounted for the risk preference of subjects. Only two of the included studies applied CVM within a cost-benefit analysis framework. CVM is not commonly reported in orthopaedic surgery and is seldom used in the context of cost-benefit analysis. There is wide variability in the methods used to perform CVM. We propose that CVM is an appropriate and underappreciated method for understanding the value of orthopaedic interventions. Increased attention should be paid to consumer valuations for orthopaedic interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 22% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from HSS Journal®
#304
of 493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,439
of 343,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HSS Journal®
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.