SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2026
Willingness to Pay per QALY: A Systematic Review of Demand-Side Valuations with a Focus on Age and Disease Severity.
Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWillingness-to-pay (WTP) studies offer a demand-side perspective on the monetary value of health gains, typically expressed as WTP per quality-adjusted life year (WTP/Q). These estimates can complement supply-side cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) and inform whether healthcare budgets align with public preferences. However, existing thresholds often overlook heterogeneity by condition or population characteristics.
objectiveThis study sought to systematically review literature on WTP/Q estimates derived from stated preference methods by (i) mapping the broader landscape of demand-side valuations and (ii) synthesizing how WTP/Q varies by both respondent and scenario-assigned age and disease severity in general-health contexts.
methodsA systematic review was conducted across Medline, Embase, and EconLit, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies estimated the monetary value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) from a societal, demand-side perspective. We first conducted a broad narrative mapping of all included studies to describe methodological characteristics and contextual diversity. We then focused on a subset of studies using general-health scenarios to explore how willingness to pay per QALY varied by age and severity. A structured four-axis framework was applied to distinguish between respondent characteristics and scenario-assigned attributes. Data were classified and tabulated. A formal quality assessment was conducted across the full set of studies using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) tool.
resultsA total of 67 studies met inclusion criteria. Most originated from high-income countries and used contingent valuation or discrete choice experiments. Among general-health studies, WTP/Q decreased with respondents' actual age in 49% of studies and increased with respondents' own health severity in 79%. In studies assessing scenario-assigned attributes, WTP/Q increased with hypothetical disease severity in 91% of studies and decreased with scenario-assigned age in 83%. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in elicitation methods, framing, and utility measurement.
conclusionsThe findings support the need for condition- and population-specific WTP thresholds, as valuations appear to vary depending on the nature of the health gain and the characteristics of the beneficiary-whether real or hypothetical.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40960572What 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.