| Title | Willingness to pay analysis of elderly diabetics for confronting diabetic retinopathy | |
| Authors | Chrisi Vlahou and Theofanis Katostaras Faculty of Nursing, National and Kapodestrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece | |
| Citation | Vlahou, Ch., Katostaras, Th.: Willingness to pay analysis of elderly diabetics for confronting diabetic retinopathy, Epitheorese Klin. Farmakol. Farmakokinet. 25(2): 69-74 (2011) | |
| Publication Date
Republication Date |
Accepted for publication (Final version): July 1, 2011 06- 11-2023 |
|
| Full Text Language | English | |
| Download article | ||
| Keywords | Willingness-to-pay, contingent valuation, diabetic retinopathy, diabetics, income. | |
| Other Terms | review article | |
| Summary | INTRODUCTION: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a frequent complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). The appearance of DR depends mainly on the duration of the diabetic disease and thus a diabetic who suffers from DM for 20 years, has a 90% probability to develop DR. Aim: This study was conducted to measure how diabetic patients value risk reduction of DR, and estimate the maximum amount of money and percent-age of monthly income these patients would pay for reduction of DR risk. METHODS: All patients gave written consent. 419 DM patients, aged ≥60 years were evaluated using «willingness to pay» (WTP) for cost-benefit analysis. After receiving background in-formation, patients were asked how much money they would pay per month for a drug that would reduce their DR risk by 30%, 60% or 90%. Patients also indicated the importance of risk reduction on a 10-degree scale (0 = not important, 10 = extremely important). Data collected included demographic information, diabetes duration and treatment, presence of DR or symptoms, and whether patients knew someone with DM. Data normality was assessed with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Differences between more groups (by education level, diabetes duration or monthly income) were evaluated with the Kruskal-Wallis test. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare groups (men vs. women, knowing vs. not knowing someone with DM, having vs. not having DR) and for post-hoc comparisons. Factors influencing “WTP” were identified with logistic regression, using “WTP” > a certain income percentage as binary dependent variable. P values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Patients having DR were willing to pay more for risk reduction (p=0.002, p=0.007 and p=0.000 for reduction by 30, 60 or 90% respectively). Patients having DM for >10 years were willing to pay more (p=0.013, p=0.012 and p=0.002 for risk reduction by 30, 60 or 90% respectively). Diabetics using insulin were willing to pay more for risk reduction to 0% (p=0.002). Diabetics knowing other diabetics were also willing to pay more (p=0.032, p=0.017 and p=0.001 for risk reduction by 30, 60 or 90% respectively). Higher education and income were associated with willingness to pay more for risk reduction. CONCLUSIONS: DR risk reduction is important to DM patients, especially those having DM for >10 years, suffering from DR or knowing someone with DM. Education and monthly income significantly influence the perceived value of DR risk reduction. | |
| References | 1. Karamitsos T.D.: Diabetes Mellitus, Undergraduate lessons. P.5, 21, University Studio Press, Thessalonica, 19862. Moore W.T., Eastman C.R.: Diagnostic Endocrinology. P. 263, Mosby, USA, 19963. American Diabetes Association (ADA). Diabetes and Retinopathy (Eye Complications). (2007) Available at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-statistics/eye-complications.jsp4. Tountas D.Ch.: Diabetes Mellitus – Theory – Practice. P. 756, Athens, 20035. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Diabetes Fact Sheet 2011 Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf6. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Public health focus: prevention of blindness associated with diabetic retinopathy. MMWR 42: 191-195 (1993)
7. O’Brien A.J., Patrick R.A., Caro J.J.: Cost of managing complications resulting from type 2 diabetes mellitus in Canada. BEMS Health Services Research 3: 7 (2003) 8. Spinthouri K.M.: Cost-Benefit Analysis with the “Willingness to pay” method of preventive pharmaceutical therapy against emesis in patients suffering from cancer who are submitted to chemotherapy. Dissertation, Faculty of Nursing, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, 2003: 99, 195 9. Rice D., Hodgson T.: Τhe value of human life revisited. Am. J. Public Health 72: 536-537 (1982) 10. Drummond F.M., O’ Brien J.B., Greg S.L., George T.W.: Methods of economic evaluations of health care programs. Athens: Kritiki 318: 335-338 (2002) 11. Donaldson C., Thomas R., Torgerson J.D.: Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay. Applied Economics 29: 79-84 (1997) 12. Gafni A.: Using willingness-to-pay as measurement of benefits. Med. Care 29: 1246-1252 (1991) 13. O’ Brien B.J., Gafni A.: When do dollars make sense? Toward a conceptual framework of contingent valuation studies in health care. Med. Decis. Making 16: 288-299 (1996) 14. National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse (NDIC). Prevent diabetes problems: keep your eyes healthy. (2010) Available at: http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/complications_eyes/index.htm |
|
| Relative Papers |
Online ISSN 1011-6575