The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence

Kanya, Lucy ORCID: 0000-0003-4312-118X, Saghera, Sabina, Lewin, Alex and Fox-Rushby, Julia (2019) The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence. Social Science and Medicine, 232. pp. 238-261. ISSN 0277-9536

Text (The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (19MB)

• Author
• Scopus publication

Abstract

Background: The contingent valuation (CV) method is used to estimate the willingness to pay (WTP) for services and products to inform cost benefit analyses (CBA). A long-standing criticism that stated WTP estimates may be poor indicators of actual WTP, calls into question their validity and the use of such estimates for welfare evaluation, especially in the health sector. Available evidence on the validity of CV studies so far is inconclusive. We systematically reviewed the literature to (1) synthesize the evidence on the criterion validity of WTP/willingness to accept (WTA), (2) undertake a meta-analysis, pooling evidence on the extent of variation between stated and actual WTP values and, (3) explore the reasons for the variation. Methods: Eight electronic databases were searched, along with citations and reference reviews. 50 papers detailing 159 comparisons were identified and reviewed using a standard proforma. Two reviewers each were involved in the paper selection, review and data extraction. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models for ratios of means and percentage differences separately. Meta-bias was investigated using funnel plots. Results: Hypothetical WTP was on average 3.2 times greater than actual WTP, with a range of 0.7–11.8 and 5.7 (0.0–13.6) for ratios of means and percentage differences respectively. However, key methodological differences between surveys of hypothetical and actual values were found. In the meta-analysis, high levels of heterogeneity existed. The overall effect size for mean summaries was 1.79 (1.56–2.04) and 2.37 (1.93–2.80) for percent summaries. Regression analyses identified mixed results on the influence of the different experimental protocols on the variation between stated and actual WTP values. Results indicating publication bias did not account for differences in study design. Conclusions: The evidence on the criterion validity for CV studies is more mixed than authors are representing because substantial differences in study design between hypothetical and actual WTP/WTA surveys are not accounted for.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	© 2019 Elsevier Litd
Divisions:	Health Policy
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General) H Social Sciences > HJ Public Finance
Date Deposited:	03 May 2019 14:06
Last Modified:	08 Nov 2024 06:42
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/100741

Actions (login required)

View Item