Linked Life Data

11746316

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/11746316

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
21
pubmed:dateCreated
2001-12-17
pubmed:abstractText
The incremental cost effectiveness ratio has long been the standard parameter of interest in the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of a new treatment. However, due to concerns with interpretability and statistical inference, authors have suggested using the willingness-to-pay for a unit of health benefit to define the incremental net benefit as an alternative. The incremental net benefit has a more consistent interpretation and is amenable to routine statistical procedures. These procedures rely on the fact that the willingness-to-accept compensation for a loss of a unit of health benefit (at some cost saving) is the same as the willingness-to-pay for it. Theoretical and empirical evidence suggest, however, that in health care the willingness-to-accept is about twice as much as the willingness-to-pay. We use Bayesian methods to provide a statistical procedure for the cost-effectiveness comparison of two arms of a randomized clinical trial that allows the willingness-to-pay and the willingness-to-accept to have different values. An example is provided.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Nov
pubmed:issn
0277-6715
pubmed:author
pubmed:copyrightInfo
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:day
15
pubmed:volume
20
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
3251-9
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2001
pubmed:articleTitle
Cost-effectiveness analysis when the WTA is greater than the WTP.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University and Center for Evaluation of Medicines, St Joseph's Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada. willana@mcmaster.ca
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article