ArticleHealth economics review2021
Economic evaluation of process utility: elucidating preferences for a non-invasive procedure to treat restenosis.
Article in Health economics review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Taxonomy of the Full Health and Societal Value of Maternal Vaccination to Prevent Infant Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- IMproving facial PRosthesis construction with contactlESs Scanning and Digital workflow (IMPRESSeD): study protocol for a feasibility crossover randomised controlled trial of digital versus conventional manufacture of facial prostheses in patients with orbital or nasal facial defects.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn health economic evaluation, utility associated with a health state is outcome-oriented and usually measured using the QALY methodology. Even though there is consistent evidence of utility not only being derived from outcomes but also from procedures, process utility has not been fully integrated in QALY calculations. The aim of this paper is twofold: first, to provide evidence of process utility associated with an alternative treatment to angioplasty, and second, to estimate a monetary value of such process utility using the willingness to pay (WTP) approach.
methodsA total of 1514 people were polled on their WTP to avoid angioplasty to have a drug-eluting stent (DES) implanted. WTP is estimated with a contingent valuation (CV) survey. Individuals are also asked if they would be WTP for a non-invasive procedure with similar results being achieved. WTP responses were analyzed using a double bounded (DB) logit model.
resultsMost of the participants showed positive preferences for avoiding angioplasty, with an estimated mean WTP of €5692.87. Using QALY gains for avoiding angioplasty, varying from 0.0035 to 0.08 QALYs, our WTP estimate imply monetary values per QALY that range from €71,160.87 to €1,626,534.28. DISCUSSION: A WTP of €5692.87 to avoid angioplasty imply a monetary value per QALY that greatly exceed the cost per QALY thresholds established in different countries to consider health programs as beneficial to society. Our results reflect how different methodologies for HTA may lead to different conclusions. From the ICER perspective, the cost that would make the treatment with pills option cost-effective, using a threshold of €40,000/QALY, would be €224. However, a cost-benefit approach could support health programs even with a higher cost.
conclusionWTP methodology captures outcome and process factors related to angioplasty as our WTP estimations are non-significantly different for the costs of angioplasty. WTP approach must be considered as a genuine alternative to QALY approaches to value process utility.
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.