Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Willingness to pay (WTP) is increasingly being used as a measure of valuation in health technology assessment. A variety of formats for eliciting values are available, although the relative virtues of each remain the subject of methodological controversy. This article compares valuation results obtained using a WTP survey instrument in a closed-ended format with those obtained from instruments using open-ended and payment scale formats. Samples of subjects were drawn from a general population, and all were asked to value the same intervention--alternative methods of screening for colorectal cancer. It was discovered that, whereas the open-ended and payment scale formats produced broadly similar valuations, the closed-ended format produced significantly higher WTP valuations and different justifications for those valuations. It is hypothesized that anchoring and yea-saying effects explain these differences and that the closed-ended format triggers a different response mode in subjects.

Type

Journal

Med Decis Making

Publication Date

03/2003

Volume

23

Pages

150 - 159

Keywords

Attitude to Health, Colorectal Neoplasms, Educational Status, Female, Financing, Personal, Great Britain, Health Expenditures, Humans, Linear Models, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Models, Econometric, Occult Blood, Odds Ratio, Research Design, Sex Factors, Surveys and Questionnaires