Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 2/2007

01-06-2007 | Original paper

Patients’ willingness to pay for electronic communication with their general practitioner

Authors: Trine Strand Bergmo, Silje Camilla Wangberg

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 2/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

Despite the common use of electronic communication in other aspects of everyday life, its use between patients and health care providers has been slow to diffuse. Possible explanations are security issues and lack of payment mechanisms. This study investigated how patients value secure electronic access to their general practitioner (GP). One hundred and ninety-nine patients were asked an open-ended willingness-to-pay (WTP) question as part of a randomised controlled trial. We compared the WTP values between two groups of respondents; one group had had the opportunity to communicate electronically with their GP for a year and the other group had not. Fifty-two percent of the total sample was willing to pay for electronic GP contact. The group of patients with access revealed a significantly lower WTP than the group without such access. Possible explanations are that the system had fewer benefits than expected, a presence of hypothetical bias or simply a preference for face-to-face encounters.
Footnotes
1
We also analysed the income adjusted for household size using Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) weights both in the logistic regression and the correlation analysis. We found no differences in the results when household-size-adjusted income was used as predictor variable.
 
Literature
1.
Katz, S.J., Moyer, C.A.: The emerging role of online communication between patients and their providers. J Gen Intern Med 19, 978–983 (2004)CrossRef
2.
Moyer, C.A., Stern, D.T., Dobias, K.S., Cox, D.T., Katz, S.J.: Bridging the electronic divide: patient and provider perspectives on e-mail communication in primary care. Am. J. Manag. Care 8, 427–33 (2002)
3.
4.
Kleiner, K.D., Akers, R., Burke, B.L., Werner, E.J.: Parent and physician attitudes regarding electronic communication in pediatric practices. Pediatrics 109, 740–744 (2002)CrossRef
5.
Sittig, D.F., King, S., Hazlehurst, B.L.: A survey of patient-provider e-mail communication: what do patients think? Int. J. Med. Inform. 61, 71–80 (2001)CrossRef
6.
Couchman, G.R., Forjuoh, S.N., Rascoe, T.G.: E-mail communications in family practice: what do patients expect? J. Fam. Pract. 50, 414–418 (2001)
7.
Fridsma, D.B., Ford, P., Altman, R.: A survey of patient access to electronic mail: attitudes, barriers and opportunities. Proceedings of the annual symposium on computer application in medical care 15–19 (1994)
8.
Andreassen, H., Sandaune, A-G., Gammon, D., Hjortdahl, P.: Use of internet health services in Norway. Tidsskr. Nor. Laegeforen. 122, 1640–1644 (2002)
9.
Hassol, A., Walker, J.M., Kidder, D., et al.: Patient experience and attitude about access to a patient electronic health care record and linked web messaging. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 11, 505–513 (2004)CrossRef
10.
White, C.B., Moyer, C.A., Stern, D.T., Katz, S.J.: A content analysis of e-mail communication between patients and their providers: patients get the message. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 11, 260–267 (2004)CrossRef
11.
Houston, K.T., Sands, D.Z., Jenckes, M.W., Ford, D.E.: Experiences of patients who where early adoptersof electronic communication with their physician: satisfaction, benefits and concerns. Am. J. Manage. Care. 10, 601–608 (2004)
12.
Sittig, D.F.: Result of a content analysis of electronic messages (e-mail) sent between patients and their physicians. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 3(1), 11 (2003)CrossRef
13.
Anand, S.G., Feldman, M.J., Geller, D.S., Bisbee, A., Bauchner H.: A content analysis of e-mail communication between primary care providers and parents. Pediatrics 115, 1283–1288 (2005)CrossRef
14.
Bergmo, T.S., Kummervold, P.E., Gammon, D., Dahl, L.B.: Electronic patient-provider communication: will it offset office visits and telephone consultation in primary care? Int. J. Med. Inform. 74(9), 705–710 (2005)CrossRef
15.
Car, J., Sheikh, A.: E-mail consultation in health care: 2-acceptability and safe application. BMJ 329, 439–442 (2004)CrossRef
16.
Mitchell, R., Carson, R.: Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Hopkins University Press, Washington DC (1989)
17.
Olsen, J.A., Smith, R.D.: Theory versus practice: a review in ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ. 10, 39–52 (2001)CrossRef
18.
Smith, R.D.: Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ. 12, 609–628 (2003)CrossRef
19.
Diener, A., O’Brien, B, Gafni, A.: Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 74, 313–326 (1998)CrossRef
20.
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131 (1974)CrossRef
21.
van Exel, N.J.A., Brouwer, W.B.F., van den Berg, B., Koopmanschap, M.A.: With a little help from an anchor: Discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation. J Soc-Econ (in press), corrected proof (2006)
22.
Kummervold, P.E., Trondsen, M., Andreassen, H., Gammon, D., Hjortdahl, P.: Patient–physician interaction over the internet. Tidssk. Nor. Laegeforen. 124, 2633–2636 (2004)
23.
24.
Peeters, G., Czapinski, J.: Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: the distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. Eur. Rev. Social Psychol 1, 33–60 (1990)CrossRef
25.
Smith, R.D.: It’s not just what you do, it’s the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. Health Econ.15(3), 281–293 (2006)CrossRef
26.
Whynes, D.K., Frew, E., Wolstenholme, J.L.: A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of collateral cancer screening. J. Health Econ. 22, 555–574 (2003)CrossRef
27.
Whynes, D.K., Philips, Z., Frew, E.: Think of a number ...any number? Health Econ. 14, 1191–1195 (2005)CrossRef
28.
Biemer, P.P., Lyberg, L.E.: Introduction to Survey Quality. Wiley, Hoboken (2003)
29.
Campanelli P.: Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A Stat. Soc. 168(3), 637–637 (2005)CrossRef
30.
Schkade, D.A., Payne, J.W.: How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 26(1), 88–109 (1994)CrossRef
31.
Shiell, A., Gold, L.: If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation. Health Econ. 12(11), 909–919 (2003)CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patients’ willingness to pay for electronic communication with their general practitioner
Authors
Trine Strand Bergmo
Silje Camilla Wangberg
Publication date
01-06-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 2/2007
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-006-0014-5

Other articles of this Issue 2/2007

The European Journal of Health Economics 2/2007 Go to the issue

Discussion

Comment on: Should we really worry about “launch delays” of new drugs in OECD countries? by L. Garatinni and S. Ghislandi

Discussion

Should we really worry about “launch delays” of new drugs in OECD countries? Reply to J Cohen

Original paper

The cost-utility of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers aged 30–49

Original paper

Pharmacoeconomic studies in Italy: a critical review of the literature

Original paper

Modelling the 5-year cost effectiveness of tiotropium, salmeterol and ipratropium for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Spain

Pricing and Reimbursement Systems in Europe

Discussion point: should governments buy drug patents?