ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2022
Scope Issue in Contingent Valuation Studies of the COVID-19 Vaccine: The Case of China.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Willingness to pay for vaccines in China: A systematic review and single-arm Bayesian meta-analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Parents' willingness to pay for their children's COVID-19 vaccine in Taiwan, China: A cross-sectional study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAssessing the public's willingness to pay (WTP) for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine by the contingent valuation (CV) method can provide a relevant basis for government pricing. However, the scope issue of the CV method can seriously affect the validity and reliability of the estimation results.
aimTo examine whether there are scope issues in respondents' WTP for the COVID-19 vaccine and to further verify the validity and reliability of the CV estimate results.
methodIn this study, nine different CV double-bounded dichotomous choices (DBDC) hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine scenarios were designed using an orthogonal experimental design based on the vaccine's attributes. A total of 2450 samples from 31 provinces in Mainland China were collected to independently estimate the public's WTP in these nine scenarios with logistic, normal, log-logistic and log-normal parameter models. Based on this estimation, several external scope tests were designed to verify the validity and reliability of the CV estimate results.
resultsIn the 20 pairs of COVID-19 vaccine scenarios, 6 pairs of scenarios were classified as negative scope issues, therefore not passing the external scope test. Of the remaining 14 pairs of scenarios, only four pairs of scenarios completely passed the external scope test, and one pair of scenarios partially passed the external scope test. Significant negative scope and scope insensitivity issues were revealed.
conclusionIn the context of a dynamic pandemic environment, the findings of this study reveal that the CV method may face difficulty in effectively estimating respondents' WTP for the COVID-19 vaccine. We suggest that future studies be cautious in applying the CV method to estimate the public's WTP for the COVID-19 vaccine.
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.