ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2025
Does timing matter? The role of health information shocks in measuring willingness to pay.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Do Patients Value the Service Provided by Physicians Who Overbill? A Willingness-to-Pay Study Using French Survey Data.Health economics · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe optimal point in time to measure willingness-to-pay (WTP) remains unclear. We investigated the role of health information shocks (HIS) in individuals' WTP, analyzing the extent to which news of SARS-CoV-2 infections among people they know/themselves altered WTP for booster vaccinations.
methodsWe elicited WTP in eight European countries using the European Covid Survey. First, we presented participants with a hypothetical setting recommending a booster vaccination that had to be paid out-of-pocket. To measure WTP, we elicited a lower and upper WTP limit, and a WTP value contingent on both of these. To measure HIS, we asked about the duration since participants received news of COVID-19 cases among people they know (including themselves), as well as the degree of personal connection to these cases and their severity. We used a two-part model to estimate the association between HIS and individuals' WTP.
resultsAmong the 5809 observations, 76.8% stated a WTP for a booster vaccination greater than €0. At least one HIS was reported by 61.9% of participants. The occurrence of a HIS was associated with an increase in WTP of €14.54 (logistic: P <.0001, gamma: P =.1493) compared to no HIS. The WTP was higher when the HIS occurred in the four weeks before the survey. Controlling for socio-demographic and COVID-19 covariates decreased significance and effect sizes.
conclusionOur findings suggest that a recent HIS is associated with a higher probability of having a positive WTP. Timing, in relation to some relevant event, therefore may matter when measuring WTP for health interventions. If so, finding the optimal point in time to measure WTP is difficult and may depend on the policy question under consideration.
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.