ArticleEconomics and human biology2020
The value of COVID-19 tests in Latin America.
Article in Economics and human biology, 2020. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants of willingness to pay for health services: a systematic review of contingent valuation studies.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Pooled it
- The challenge of estimating the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 interventions - Toward an integrated economic and epidemiological approach.Economics and human biology · 2023Review
- The local and global mental health effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.Economics and human biology · 2022Article
- Facing an unfortunate trade-off: policy responses, lessons and spill-overs during the COVID-19 pandemic.Economics and human biology · 2021Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior Related to COVID-19 Testing: A Rapid Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Testing is a crucial strategy to control the spread of a pandemic. Voluntary participation in this strategy will depend on individual preferences towards and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for test results. We distributed a web-based, contingent valuation survey to social-media users in 16 Latin American countries to evaluate regional attitudes towards the emerging COVID-19 outbreak and WTP for COVID-19 testing. We observe that the cost of the test and household income are important determinants of testing intentions. We find higher WTP among those reporting greater concern relative to the average respondent. Accounting for uncertainty, our results indicate a WTP of approximately $45 dollars or 4.2 % of monthly income among respondents. These results, paired with our predicted participation rate of between 84-94 % for a $1 test, suggest that local officials will be able to effectively recruit participation in this mitigation strategy given the appropriate subsidization structure.
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.