支付意愿是衡量心理健康护理效益的一个指标

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Andrew Healey, Daniel Chisholm
{"title":"支付意愿是衡量心理健康护理效益的一个指标","authors":"Andrew Healey,&nbsp;Daniel Chisholm","doi":"10.1002/(SICI)1099-176X(199906)2:2<55::AID-MHP42>3.0.CO;2-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Decision-makers would benefit from being able to plan and evaluate mental health care interventions or programmes on the basis of costs and consequences that are measured in the same unit of measurement (money being the most convenient). Monetized quantification of the consequences of alternative interventions could be subsequently incorporated into cost–benefit allocation decisions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> <b>Aim</b></h3>\n \n <p>This paper provides an overview of the policy and research context within which willingness-to-pay survey techniques are located, together with a review of the main approaches used to date. We also highlight key issues in the application of these techniques and indicate areas of mental health research and policy that could benefit from their introduction.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Willingness-to-pay survey techniques are reviewed, and issues concerning their validity and application in the context of cost–benefit analyses of mental health policies are discussed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Different survey methods are available for generating willingness-to-pay data, the most common being the contingent valuation approach. An assessment of the validity of data generated by these alternative techniques is vital in order to ensure that they are consistent with the notion of economic preferences and values.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Implications</h3>\n \n <p>The generation of valid and meaningful data on the monetized value of mental health outcomes would provide decision-makers with an improved evidence-based framework for resource allocation. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":46381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","volume":"2 2","pages":"55-58"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/(SICI)1099-176X(199906)2:2<55::AID-MHP42>3.0.CO;2-1","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Willingness to pay as a measure of the benefits of mental health care\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Healey,&nbsp;Daniel Chisholm\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/(SICI)1099-176X(199906)2:2<55::AID-MHP42>3.0.CO;2-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Decision-makers would benefit from being able to plan and evaluate mental health care interventions or programmes on the basis of costs and consequences that are measured in the same unit of measurement (money being the most convenient). Monetized quantification of the consequences of alternative interventions could be subsequently incorporated into cost–benefit allocation decisions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> <b>Aim</b></h3>\\n \\n <p>This paper provides an overview of the policy and research context within which willingness-to-pay survey techniques are located, together with a review of the main approaches used to date. We also highlight key issues in the application of these techniques and indicate areas of mental health research and policy that could benefit from their introduction.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>Willingness-to-pay survey techniques are reviewed, and issues concerning their validity and application in the context of cost–benefit analyses of mental health policies are discussed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Different survey methods are available for generating willingness-to-pay data, the most common being the contingent valuation approach. An assessment of the validity of data generated by these alternative techniques is vital in order to ensure that they are consistent with the notion of economic preferences and values.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Implications</h3>\\n \\n <p>The generation of valid and meaningful data on the monetized value of mental health outcomes would provide decision-makers with an improved evidence-based framework for resource allocation. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46381,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics\",\"volume\":\"2 2\",\"pages\":\"55-58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/(SICI)1099-176X(199906)2:2<55::AID-MHP42>3.0.CO;2-1\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-176X%28199906%292%3A2%3C55%3A%3AAID-MHP42%3E3.0.CO%3B2-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-176X%28199906%292%3A2%3C55%3A%3AAID-MHP42%3E3.0.CO%3B2-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

摘要

背景决策者将受益于能够根据以相同计量单位衡量的成本和后果(金钱是最方便的)来规划和评估心理健康护理干预措施或方案。替代干预措施后果的货币化量化随后可以纳入成本效益分配决策。目的本文概述了支付意愿调查技术所处的政策和研究背景,并回顾了迄今为止使用的主要方法。我们还强调了这些技术应用中的关键问题,并指出了可以从这些技术的引入中受益的心理健康研究和政策领域。方法回顾支付意愿调查技术,并讨论其在心理健康政策成本效益分析中的有效性和应用问题。讨论不同的调查方法可用于生成支付意愿数据,最常见的是或有估值方法。评估这些替代技术产生的数据的有效性至关重要,以确保它们与经济偏好和价值观的概念一致。影响生成关于心理健康结果货币化价值的有效和有意义的数据将为决策者提供一个改进的基于证据的资源分配框架。版权所有©1999 John Wiley&;有限公司。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Willingness to pay as a measure of the benefits of mental health care

Background

Decision-makers would benefit from being able to plan and evaluate mental health care interventions or programmes on the basis of costs and consequences that are measured in the same unit of measurement (money being the most convenient). Monetized quantification of the consequences of alternative interventions could be subsequently incorporated into cost–benefit allocation decisions.

Aim

This paper provides an overview of the policy and research context within which willingness-to-pay survey techniques are located, together with a review of the main approaches used to date. We also highlight key issues in the application of these techniques and indicate areas of mental health research and policy that could benefit from their introduction.

Method

Willingness-to-pay survey techniques are reviewed, and issues concerning their validity and application in the context of cost–benefit analyses of mental health policies are discussed.

Discussion

Different survey methods are available for generating willingness-to-pay data, the most common being the contingent valuation approach. An assessment of the validity of data generated by these alternative techniques is vital in order to ensure that they are consistent with the notion of economic preferences and values.

Implications

The generation of valid and meaningful data on the monetized value of mental health outcomes would provide decision-makers with an improved evidence-based framework for resource allocation. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics publishes high quality empirical, analytical and methodologic papers focusing on the application of health and economic research and policy analysis in mental health. It offers an international forum to enable the different participants in mental health policy and economics - psychiatrists involved in research and care and other mental health workers, health services researchers, health economists, policy makers, public and private health providers, advocacy groups, and the pharmaceutical industry - to share common information in a common language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信