A Systematic Review of WTA-WTP Disparity for Dental Interventions and Implications for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
contingent valuation
dental implants
dentistry
economic evaluation
health services research
public health
water fluoridation
willingness to pay
Journal
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2227-9032
Titre abrégé: Healthcare (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101666525
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Aug 2020
26 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
15
07
2020
revised:
19
08
2020
accepted:
24
08
2020
entrez:
30
8
2020
pubmed:
30
8
2020
medline:
30
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cost-effectiveness analysis is widely adopted as an analytical framework to evaluate whether health care interventions represent value for money, and its use in dentistry is increasing. Traditionally, in cost-effectiveness analysis, one assumes that the decision maker's maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for health gain is equivalent to his minimum willingness to accept (WTA) monetary compensation for health loss. It has been documented in the literature that losses are weighted higher than equivalent gains, i.e., that WTA exceeds WTP for the same health condition, resulting in a WTA/WTP ratio greater than 1. There is a knowledge gap of published WTA/WTP ratios for dental interventions in the literature. We therefore conducted a (i) systematic review of published WTA-WTP estimates in dentistry (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, London, UK) and (ii) a patient-level analysis of WTA/WTP ratios of included studies, and (iii) we demonstrate the impact of a WTA-WTP disparity on cost-effectiveness analysis. Out of 55 eligible studies, two studies were included in our review. The WTA/WTP ratio ranged from 2.58 for discontinuing water fluoridation to 5.12 for mandibular implant overdentures, indicating a higher disparity for implant rehabilitations than for dental public health interventions. A WTA-WTP disparity inflates the cost-effectiveness of dental interventions when there is a substantial risk of both lower costs and health outcomes. We therefore recommend that in these cases the results of cost-effectiveness analyses are reported using different WTA/WTP ratios in a sensitivity analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32858834
pii: healthcare8030301
doi: 10.3390/healthcare8030301
pmc: PMC7550993
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Open Dent J. 2017 Sep 14;11:498-502
pubmed: 29299073
Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2004 Sep;4(3):199-210
pubmed: 15277778
Med Decis Making. 1998 Apr-Jun;18(2 Suppl):S68-80
pubmed: 9566468
J Dent Res. 2013 Dec;92(12 Suppl):183S-8S
pubmed: 24158338
J Dent. 2017 Sep;64:1-12
pubmed: 28662842
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999 Apr;27(2):124-9
pubmed: 10226722
Pharmacoeconomics. 2020 May;38(5):443-458
pubmed: 32096146
N Engl J Med. 1977 Mar 31;296(13):716-21
pubmed: 402576
Health Econ. 1999 May;8(3):257-61
pubmed: 10348420
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005 Dec;5(6):661-5
pubmed: 19807606
Health Econ. 1994 Sep-Oct;3(5):309-19
pubmed: 7827647
Med Decis Making. 1990 Jul-Sep;10(3):212-4
pubmed: 2115096
Value Health. 2008 Dec;11(7):1110-9
pubmed: 18489505
J Dent Res. 2015 Oct;94(10):1348-54
pubmed: 26082388
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998 Summer;14(3):467-71
pubmed: 9780533
Health Econ. 2002 Mar;11(2):175-80
pubmed: 11921315
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Feb;31(2):93-100
pubmed: 23329426
Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(12):1207-14
pubmed: 16336015
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2011 Mar;20(1):40-9
pubmed: 21499542
Value Health. 2010 Dec;13(8):1046-55
pubmed: 20825620
Health Econ. 1998 Jun;7(4):313-26
pubmed: 9683092
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018 Apr;46(2):118-124
pubmed: 28925508
Soc Sci Med. 1995 Aug;41(4):483-9
pubmed: 7481942
Health Econ. 2000 Oct;9(7):623-30
pubmed: 11103928
Soc Sci Med. 2007 Sep;65(5):946-57
pubmed: 17499410
Health Econ. 2002 Jan;11(1):23-31
pubmed: 11788979
Health Econ. 2001 Oct;10(7):675-80
pubmed: 11747050
Health Econ. 2001 Dec;10(8):779-87
pubmed: 11747057