PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 347–362 | Cite as

Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence

  • Richard De Abreu Lourenco
  • Marion Haas
  • Jane Hall
  • Rosalie Viney
Systematic Review

Abstract

Objective

This review explores the evidence from the literature regarding how meta-health effects (effects other than health resulting from the consumption of health care) are valued for use in economic evaluations.

Methods

A systematic review of the published literature (the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit and SocINDEX databases were searched for publications in March 2016, plus manual searching) investigated the associations between study methods and the resulting values for meta-health effects estimated for use in economic evaluations. The review considered which meta-health effects were being valued and how this differed by evaluation approach, intervention investigated, source of funds and year of publication. Detailed reasons for differences observed between values for comparable meta-health effects were explored, accounting for the method of valuation.

Results

The search of the literature revealed 71 studies of interest; 35% involved drug interventions, with convenience, information and process of care the three meta-health effects most often investigated. Key associations with the meta-health effects were the evaluation method, the intervention, and the source of funds. Relative values for meta-health effects ranged from 0.9% to 68% of the overall value reported in a study. For a given meta-health effect, the magnitude of the effect evaluated and how the meta-health effect was described and framed relative to overall health explained the differences in relative values.

Conclusions

Evidence from the literature shows variability in how meta-health effects are being measured for use in economic evaluations. Understanding the sources of that variability is important if decision makers are to have confidence in how meta-health effects are valued.

Keywords

Economic Evaluation Assisted Reproductive Technology Contingent Valuation Valuation Method Conjoint Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contribution of Liz Chinchen in conducting the initial search of the literature and assisting with refinement of the search criteria. They also acknowledge the contributions made by the anonymous reviewers at Pharmacoeconomics in refining this article.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This research was completed as part of a Ph.D. programme for Richard De Abreu Lourenco, who was a recipient of the University of Technology Sydney Business School Ph.D. Scholarship.

Funding

No funding was received specifically for the conduct of this research.

Conflict of interest

Richard De Abreu Lourenco has no conflicts of interest to declare. Professor Marion Haas, Professor Jane Hall and Professor Rosalie Viney have no conflicts of interest to declare. There was no requirement for this study to undergo review by a Human Research Ethics Committee.

Author contributions

RAL was responsible for the design of this research, review of the literature searches, data abstraction and analysis, and manuscript preparation. Professors MH, JH and RV were involved in defining the parameters of the research, resolving questions regarding study inclusion, interpretation of the analysis, and manuscript preparation. All authors take responsibility for the final version of this article.

Supplementary material

40273_2016_470_MOESM1_ESM.docx (11 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 11 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Clement F, Harris A, Li J, Yong K, Lee K, Manns B. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302:1437–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Erdine S. How do compliance, convenience, and tolerability affect blood pressure goal rates? Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2012;12:295–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Somayaji R, Parkins MD. Tobramycin inhalation powder: an efficient and efficacious therapy for the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis. Ther Deliv. 2015;6:121–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Opmeer BC, De Borgie CAJM, Mol BWJ, Bossuyt PMM. Assessing preferences regarding healthcare interventions that involve non-health outcomes: an overview of clinical studies. Patient. 2010;3:1–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brennan VK, Dixon S. Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:677–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salkeld G, Quine S, Cameron ID. What constitutes success in preventive health care? A case study in assessing the benefits of hip protectors. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:1593–601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gandjour A. Is subjective well-being a useful parameter for allocating resources among public interventions? Health Care Anal. 2001;9:437–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koszegi B. Health anxiety and patient behavior. J Health Econ. 2003;22:1073–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Augustovski F, Beratarrechea A, Irazola V, et al. Patient preferences for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete-choice experiment. Value Health. 2013;16:385–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Birch S, Melnikow J, Kuppermann M. Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: testing for process utility. Health Econ. 2003;12:879–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borghi J, Jan S. Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: application of the contingent valuation method. Health Policy. 2008;87:235–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bryan S, Jowett S. Hypothetical versus real preferences: results from an opportunistic field experiment. Health Econ. 2010;19:1502–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chan YM, Sahota DS, Leung TY, Choy KW, Chan OK, Lau TK. Chinese women’s preferences for prenatal diagnostic procedure and their willingness to trade between procedures. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29:1270–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dixon S, Shackley P. Estimating the benefits of community water fluoridation using the willingness-to-pay technique: results of a pilot study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999;27:124–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does ‘process utility’ exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:699–707.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fiebig DG, Knox S, Viney R, Haas M, Street DJ. Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products. Health Econ. 2011;20(Suppl 1):35–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Colley L, et al. Socioeconomic differences in preferences and willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery systems in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11:567–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Schenkel B, Lofland JH, Martin S. The value to patients of reducing lesion severity in plaque psoriasis. J Dermatolog Treat. 2011;22:266–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Howard K, Salkeld G, McCaffery K, Irwig L. HPV triage testing or repeat pap smear for the management of a typical squamous cells (ASCUS) on pap smear: is there evidence of process utility? Health Econ. 2008;17:593–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lakdawalla DN, Romley JA, Sanchez Y, Maclean JR, Penrod JR, Philipson T. How cancer patients value hope and the implications for cost-effectiveness assessments of high-cost cancer therapies. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31:676–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naik-Panvelkar P, Armour C, Rose J, Saini B. Patients’ value of asthma services in Australian pharmacies: the way ahead for asthma care. J Asthma. 2012;49:310–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Hammitt JK, et al. Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents. Health Econ. 2012;21:238–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oteng B, Marra F, Lynd LD, Ogilvie G, Patrick D, Marra CA. Evaluating societal preferences for human papillomavirus vaccine and cervical smear test screening programme. Sex Transm Infect. 2011;87:52–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palumbo A, De La Fuente P, Rodriguez M, et al. Willingness to pay and conjoint analysis to determine women’s preferences for ovarian stimulating hormones in the treatment of infertility in Spain. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1790–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Park H, Chon Y, Lee J, Choi Ie J, Yoon KH. Service design attributes affecting diabetic patient preferences of telemedicine in South Korea. Telemed J Educ Health. 2011;17:442–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilization. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:535–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Swan JS, Lawrence WF, Roy J. Process utility in breast biopsy. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:347–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Swan JS, Sainfort F, Lawrence WF, Kuruchittham V, Kongnakorn T, Heisey DM. Process utility for imaging in cerebrovascular disease. Acad Radiol. 2003;10:266–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yasunaga H, Ide H, Imamura T, Ohe K. Benefit evaluation of mass screening for prostate cancer: willingness-to-pay measurement using contingent valuation. Urology. 2006;68:1046–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boye K, Matza L, Walter K, Van Brunt K, Palsgrove A, Tynan A. Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12:219–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cairns J, Shackley P, Hundley V. Decision making with respect to diagnostic testing: a method of valuing the benefits of antenatal screening. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:161–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chancellor J, Aballea S, Lawrence A, et al. Preferences of patients with diabetes mellitus for inhaled versus injectable insulin regimens. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:217–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cook J, Richardson JR, Street A. A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: methodological issues and results. Health Econ. 1994;3:157–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Osborne RH, Dalton A, Hertel J, Schrover R, Kingsford Smith D. Health-related quality of life advantage of long-acting injectable antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia: a time-trade off study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Osborne RH, De Abreu Lourenco R, Dalton A, et al. Quality of life related to oral versus subcutaneous iron chelation: a time trade-off study. Value Health. 2007;10:451–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Philips Z, Avis M, Whynes D. Introducing HPV triage into the English cervical cancer screening program: consequences for participation. Women Health. 2006;43:17–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Polster M, Zanutto E, McDonald S, Conner C, Hammer M. A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products—liraglutide and exenatide—for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ. 2010;13:655–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, Weinstein MC. Patient and community preferences for treatments and health states in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2003;9:311–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Swan J, Fryback D, Lawrence W, Sainfort F, Hagenauer M, Heisey D. A time-tradeoff method for cost-effectiveness models applied to radiology. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:79–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Protiere C, Donaldson C, Luchini S, Moatti JP, Shackley P. The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:1257–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gidengil C, Lieu T, Payne K, Rusinak D, Messonnier M, Prosser L. Parental and societal values for the risks and benefit of childhood combination vaccines. Vaccine. 2012;30:3445–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Johnson ES, Sullivan SD, Mozaffari E, Langley PC, Bodsworth NJ. A utility assessment of oral and intravenous ganciclovir for the maintenance treatment of AIDS-related cytomegalovirus retinitis. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;10:623–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Phillips K, Maddala T, Johnson F. Conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. HSR Health Serv Res. 2002;37:1681–705.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Carroll FE, Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Montgomery AA. Women and their partners’ preferences for Down’s syndrome screening tests: a discrete choice experiment. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:449–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Matza LS, Sapra SJ, Dillon JF, et al. Health state utilities associated with attributes of treatments for hepatitis C. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16:1005–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nafees B, Lloyd A, Elkin E, Porret T. To explore preferences and willingness to pay for attributes regarding stoma appliances amongst patients in the UK, France and Germany. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015;31:687–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Torbica A, Fattore G, Ayala F. Eliciting preferences to inform patient-centred policies: the case of psoriasis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:209–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yee LM, Kaimal AJ, Houston KA, et al. Mode of delivery preferences in a diverse population of pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(377):e1–24.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kauf TL, Roskell N, Shearer A, et al. A predictive model of health state utilities for HIV patients in the modern era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Value Health. 2008;11:1144–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schmier J, Palmer C, Flood E, Gourlay G. Utility assessments of opioid treatment for chronic pain. Pain Med. 2002;3:218–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bijlenga D, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of three health-state valuation methods using multiple-outcome vignettes on moderate-risk pregnancy at term. Value Health. 2009;12:821–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Brett Hauber A, Mohamed AF, Beam C, Medjedovic J, Mauskopf J. Patient preferences and assessment of likely adherence to hepatitis C virus treatment. J Viral Hepat. 2011;18:619–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Brown TM, Pashos CL, Joshi AV, Lee WC. The perspective of patients with haemophilia with inhibitors and their care givers: preferences for treatment characteristics. Haemophilia. 2011;17:476–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bunge EM, de Bekker-Grob EW, van Biezen FC, Essink-Bot ML, de Koning HJ. Patients’ preferences for scoliosis brace treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Spine. 2010;35:57–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Davison SN, Kromm SK, Currie GR. Patient and health professional preferences for organ allocation and procurement, end-of-life care and organization of care for patients with chronic kidney disease using a discrete choice experiment. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25:2334–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dwight Johnson M, Apesoa-Varano C, Hay J, Unutzer J, Hinton L. Depression treatment preferences of older white and Mexican origin men. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35:59–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dwight-Johnson M, Lagomasino IT, Hay J, et al. Effectiveness of collaborative care in addressing depression treatment preferences among low-income Latinos. Psychiatr Serv. 2010;61:1112–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gerard K, Shanahan M, Louviere J. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: a pilot study of breast screening participation. Appl Econ. 2003;35:1073–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Haas M. The impact of non-health attributes of care on patients’ choice of GP. Aust J Prim Health. 2005;11:40–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hendrix M, Pavlova M, Nieuwenhuijze MJ, Severens JL, Nijhuis JG. Differences in preferences for obstetric care between nulliparae and their partners in the Netherlands: a discrete-choice experiment. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2010;31:243–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kauf TL, Mohamed AF, Hauber AB, Fetzer D, Ahmad A. Patients’ willingness to accept the risks and benefits of new treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Patient. 2012;5:265–78.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Marti J. A best-worst scaling survey of adolescents’ level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:87–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Porzsolt F, Clouth J, Deutschmann M, Hippler HJ. Preferences of diabetes patients and physicians: a feasibility study to identify the key indicators for appraisal of health care values. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:125.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Scotland GS, McNamee P, Cheyne H, Hundley V, Barnett C. Women’s preferences for aspects of labor management: results from a discrete choice experiment. Birth. 2011;38:36–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Shackley P, Slack R, Michaels J. Vascular patients’ preferences for local treatment: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001;6:151–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Snoek GJ, van Til JA, Krabbe PF, Ijzerman MJ. Decision for reconstructive interventions of the upper limb in individuals with tetraplegia: the effect of treatment characteristics. Spinal Cord. 2008;46:228–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sung L, Alibhai SM, Ethier MC, et al. Discrete choice experiment produced estimates of acceptable risks of therapeutic options in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:627–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1998;3:70–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Waschbusch DA, Cunningham CE, Pelham WE, et al. A discrete choice conjoint experiment to evaluate parent preferences for treatment of young, medication naive children with ADHD. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2011;40:546–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Benning TM, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, Severens JL. Preferences for potential innovations in non-invasive colorectal cancer screening: a labeled discrete choice experiment for a Dutch screening campaign. Acta Oncol. 2014;53:898–908.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Burton CR, Fargher E, Plumpton C, Roberts GW, Owen H, Roberts E. Investigating preferences for support with life after stroke: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Bliemer MC, Donkers B, et al. Patients’ and urologists’ preferences for prostate cancer treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2013;109:633–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Franken M, Koolman X. Health system goals: a discrete choice experiment to obtain societal valuations. Health Policy. 2013;112:28–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hechmati G, Hauber AB, Arellano J, et al. Patients’ preferences for bone metastases treatments in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:21–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kaambwa B, Lancsar E, McCaffrey N, et al. Investigating consumers’ and informal carers’ views and preferences for consumer directed care: a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2015;140:81–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kan VY, Marquez Azalgara V, Ford JA, Peter Kwan WC, Erb SR, Yoshida EM. Patient preference and willingness to pay for transient elastography versus liver biopsy: a perspective from British Columbia. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;29:72–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Marsidi N, van den Bergh MW, Luijendijk RW. The best marketing strategy in aesthetic plastic surgery: evaluating patients’ preferences by conjoint analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:52–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Wilson L, Loucks A, Bui C, et al. Patient centered decision making: use of conjoint analysis to determine risk-benefit trade-offs for preference sensitive treatment choices. J Neurol Sci. 2014;344:80–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Poulos C, Hauber A, Gonzalez J, Turpcu A. Patients’ willingness to trade off between the duration and frequency of rheumatoid arthritis treatments. Arthritis Care Res. 2014;66:1008–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Benning T, Dellaert B, Severens J, Dirksen C. The effect of presenting information about invasive follow-up testing on individuals’ noninvasive colorectal cancer screening participation decision: results from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2014;17:578–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lin P, Concannon T, Greenberg D, et al. Does framing of cancer survival affect perceived value of care? A willingness-to-pay survey of US residents. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13:513–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Payne K, McAllister M, Davies LM. Valuing the economic benefits of complex interventions: when maximising health is not sufficient. Health Econ. 2013;22:258–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 2002;11:447–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. General methods. Cologne; 2015.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. In: Department of Health (ed). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2013.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Higgins A, Barnett J, Meads C, Singh J, Longworth L. Does convenience matter in health care delivery? A systematic review of convenience-based aspects of process utility. Value Health. 2014;17:877–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Conn VS, Ruppar TM, Maithe Enriquez RN, Cooper PS. Patient-centered outcomes of medication adherence interventions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health. 2016;19:277–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Shani Y, Tykocinski OE, Zeelenberg M. When ignorance is not bliss: how feelings of discomfort promote the search for negative information. J Econ Psychol. 2008;29:643–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Health Economics Research and EvaluationUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations