ArticleHealth services research2019
Using contingent valuation to develop consumer-based weights for health quality report cards.
Article in Health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methods to derive composite indicators used for quality and safety measurement and monitoring in healthcare: a scoping review.Frontiers in health services · 2026Pooled it
- Families' and Residents' Perspectives of the Quality of Nursing Home Care: Implications for Composite Quality Measures.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2021Article
- Personality Traits and Annual Income Determine the Willingness to Pay for a Single Tooth Implant.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Comparison of Consumer Rankings With Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Five-Star Rankings of Nursing Homes.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Using contingent valuation to develop consumer-based weights for health quality report cards.Health services research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe current 5-Star composite measure for nursing homes uses expert-driven weights to combine elements of quality into a single score. We assessed the feasibility of using the contingent valuation method (CVM) to derive consumers' preference-based weights for the Nursing Home Compare report card as a potential alternative approach. DATA SOURCES: Survey of 4310 adults with nursing home experience (residents or family members of a resident) administered between September 25 and October 9, 2017. STUDY
designContingent valuation method based on respondents' answers to questions about willingness-to-trade (WTT) visit travel time for better quality in seven quantitative indices included in Nursing Home Compare. We calculated WTT amounts per standard deviation change in quantitative indices to derive weights. DATA COLLECTION
methodsWeb-based survey. PRINCIPAL
findingsContingent valuation method results are consistent with respondents making economically rational trade-offs between quality and travel time. Estimates of mean WTT vary across quantitative quality indices. They also vary in terms of respondent status and behavioral factors. Weights based on mean WTT per standard deviation vary substantially across indices, with the largest weights for inspections and staffing.
conclusionsContingent valuation method has promise as a method for deriving weights for use in summary measures that incorporate consumer preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.