Contingent valuation in health care: does it matter how the ‘good’ is described?

Richard D. Smith

Health Economics, 2008, vol. 17, issue 5, 607-617

Abstract: A general population sample of 104 Australian respondents completed an interviewer‐administered contingent valuation (CV) survey that asked them to value five scenarios representing the same core improvement in health status. These scenarios varied only in the degree of narrative used to describe the condition causing the health problem being valued and labeling of this health problem. Results indicate no significant difference in willingness to pay (WTP) between expressing symptoms as a brief or moderate narrative, but a significantly lower WTP value when expressed in an extensive narrative. WTP also differed significantly according to condition ‘labels’. Possible implications for CV research are outlined. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 2008
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1280

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:17:y:2008:i:5:p:607-617

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones

More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().