PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 589–595

Assessing the Willingness of Parents to Pay for Reducing Postoperative Emesis in Children

  • Lara Diez
Original Research Article Willingness to Pay for Antiemetics

Summary

This study assessed the willingness of parents to pay for a reduction in the postoperative emesis experienced by children.

The willingness-to-pay technique was used to value the intangible benefits, such as relief from anxiety and discomfort, resulting from a reduction in postoperative emesis in children; anxiety and discomfort are currently excluded from most cost-effectiveness studies of antiemetic agents.

A structured questionnaire was used to interview a representative sample of 162 parents. These were parents, identified by Gallup, whose children had undergone surgery within the previous 2 years and, therefore, were familiar with the postoperative experience.

The median willingness to pay for a reduction in postoperative emesis in children was found to be £50 (30% of parents were unwilling to pay more than £5, while more than 35% of parents were willing to pay £100 or more). Most parents expressed some degree of worry about postoperative nausea and vomiting; 24% were very worried about it. This study found that simple cost—effectiveness studies of antiemetic agents including only direct costs underestimate the true value of the intervention.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen MM, Cameron CB, Duncan PG. Pediatric anesthesia morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period. Anesth Analg 1990; 70: 160–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin DM, Furst SR, Rodarte A. A double-blinded comparison of metoclopramide and droperidol for prevention of emesis following strabismus surgery. Anesthesiology 1992; 76: 357–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Furst SR, Rodarte A. Prophylactic antiemetic treatment with ondansetron in children undergoing tonsillectomy. Anesthesiology 1994; 81: 799–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paxton D, Taylor RH, Gallagher TM, et al. Postoperative emesis following otoplasty in children. Anaesthesia 1995; 50: 1083–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abramowitz MD, Oh T, Epstein BS, et al. The antiemetic effect of droperidol following outpatient strabismus surgery in children. Anesthesiology 1983; 59: 579–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morris RW, Ernst E, Greaves DJ, et al. An audit of the incidence and costs associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting following major gynaecological surgery. Eur Soc Anaesthesiol (Brussels): May 1993Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thwaites RMA, Cohen LA. Cost-effectiveness of intravenous ondansetron in the prevention of PONV in paediatric adenotonsillectomy patients [abstract no. F211]. Proceedings of the 11th World Congress of Anaesthesiology; Sydney, Australia, 1996Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patel RI, Hannallah RS. Anesthetic complications following pediatric ambulatory surgery: a 3-yr study. Anesthesiology 1988; 6: 1009-129. Ernst EMC. The economics of quality care. United Kingdom: Direct Publishing Solutions, 1994Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Davis PJ, McGowan FX, Landsman I, et al. Effect of antiemetic therapy on recovery and hospital discharge time: a doubleblind assessment of ondansetron, droperidol and placebo in pediatric patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. Anesthesiology 1995; 83: 956–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 11.
    British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Br National Formulary 1996; Sept: 32Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Donaldson C. Theory and practice of willingness to pay for healthcare. Health Economics Research Unit: University of Aberdeen. Discussion paper no.: 01/93Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Johannesson M, Jonsson B. Economic evaluation of osteoporosis prevention. Health Policy 1993; 24/2: 103–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 14.
    OBrien BJ, Novosel S, Torrance G, et al. Assessing the economic value of a new antidepressant: a willingness to pay approach. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (1): 34–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 15.
    Gerard K, Mooney G. QALY league tables: handle with care. Health Econ 1993; 2: 59–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 16.
    Miedzybrodzka Z, Semper J, Shakely P, et al. Stepwise or couple antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis?: womens preferences and willingness to pay. J Med Genet 1995; 32: 282–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 17.
    Appel LJ, Steinberg EP, Powe NR. Risk reduction from low osmolality contrast media: what do patients think it is worth? Med Care 1990; 28: 324–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 18.
    Hollander M, Wolfe DA. Nonparametric statistical methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Hawksworth C. Willingness to pay for ‘better’ day surgery drugs. J One—Day Surg, Winter 1996/1997: 3–4Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Nightingale K. Achieving quality of care. United Kingdom: Direct Publishing Solutions, 1994Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Donaldson C. Distributional aspects of willingness to pay. Health Economics Resource Unit: University of Aberdeen, Discussion paper no.: 01/96Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Little IMD. A critique of welfare economics. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    NHS Executive. Priorities and planning guidance for the NHS: 1997/8. Department of Health: June 1996Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lara Diez
    • 1
  1. 1.Formerly of The Health Economics DepartmentGlaxoWellcome UKEngland

Personalised recommendations