Cargando…

Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective

BACKGROUND: Perceived benefits of intervention programs from a participant perspective can be examined by assessing their willingness to pay (WTP). Aiming to support decision-makers in their decision to implement a fall prevention program, this study examined (1) the WTP for a group-based and an ind...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gottschalk, Sophie, König, Hans-Helmut, Schwenk, Michael, Nerz, Corinna, Becker, Clemens, Klenk, Jochen, Jansen, Carl-Philipp, Dams, Judith
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9580107/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36258179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14322-2
_version_ 1784812322568536064
author Gottschalk, Sophie
König, Hans-Helmut
Schwenk, Michael
Nerz, Corinna
Becker, Clemens
Klenk, Jochen
Jansen, Carl-Philipp
Dams, Judith
author_facet Gottschalk, Sophie
König, Hans-Helmut
Schwenk, Michael
Nerz, Corinna
Becker, Clemens
Klenk, Jochen
Jansen, Carl-Philipp
Dams, Judith
author_sort Gottschalk, Sophie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Perceived benefits of intervention programs from a participant perspective can be examined by assessing their willingness to pay (WTP). Aiming to support decision-makers in their decision to implement a fall prevention program, this study examined (1) the WTP for a group-based and an individually delivered fall prevention program, (2) which factors influence WTP, and (3) whether the WTP exceeds the intervention costs. METHODS: WTP was elicited using Payment Cards from 237 individuals who participated in a randomized non-inferiority trial (LiFE-is-LiFE) comparing a group version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program (gLiFE) with the individually delivered version (LiFE). Linear regression models were used to examine factors associated with WTP. The net benefit for (g)LiFE was calculated as the difference between WTP and intervention costs, assuming different scenarios of intervention costs (varying group sizes of gLiFE) and hypothetical subsidy levels by a payer (€0, €50, or €75). RESULTS: The mean WTP was €196 (95% CI [172, 221]) for gLiFE and €228 (95% CI [204, 251]) for LiFE. In the linear regression model, WTP was significantly associated with delivery format (−€32, 95% CI [− 65, − 0.2], for gLiFE) and net household income (+ 68€, 95% CI [23, 113], for ≥€3000 compared to <€2000). The net benefit for gLiFE was positive in most cases. Due to higher intervention costs of LiFE compared to gLiFE (€298 vs. €113), the net benefit for LiFE was negative for the majority of the sample, even at a subsidy of €75. CONCLUSION: The results provide insight into how valuable the interventions are perceived by the participants and thereby may be used by decision-makers as complement to cost-effectiveness analyses. WTP for both programs was generally high, probably indicating that participants perceived the intervention as quite valuable. However, further research is needed on the WTP and net benefit of fall prevention programs, as results relied on the specific context of the LiFE-is-LiFE trial. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14322-2.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9580107
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95801072022-10-20 Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective Gottschalk, Sophie König, Hans-Helmut Schwenk, Michael Nerz, Corinna Becker, Clemens Klenk, Jochen Jansen, Carl-Philipp Dams, Judith BMC Public Health Research BACKGROUND: Perceived benefits of intervention programs from a participant perspective can be examined by assessing their willingness to pay (WTP). Aiming to support decision-makers in their decision to implement a fall prevention program, this study examined (1) the WTP for a group-based and an individually delivered fall prevention program, (2) which factors influence WTP, and (3) whether the WTP exceeds the intervention costs. METHODS: WTP was elicited using Payment Cards from 237 individuals who participated in a randomized non-inferiority trial (LiFE-is-LiFE) comparing a group version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program (gLiFE) with the individually delivered version (LiFE). Linear regression models were used to examine factors associated with WTP. The net benefit for (g)LiFE was calculated as the difference between WTP and intervention costs, assuming different scenarios of intervention costs (varying group sizes of gLiFE) and hypothetical subsidy levels by a payer (€0, €50, or €75). RESULTS: The mean WTP was €196 (95% CI [172, 221]) for gLiFE and €228 (95% CI [204, 251]) for LiFE. In the linear regression model, WTP was significantly associated with delivery format (−€32, 95% CI [− 65, − 0.2], for gLiFE) and net household income (+ 68€, 95% CI [23, 113], for ≥€3000 compared to <€2000). The net benefit for gLiFE was positive in most cases. Due to higher intervention costs of LiFE compared to gLiFE (€298 vs. €113), the net benefit for LiFE was negative for the majority of the sample, even at a subsidy of €75. CONCLUSION: The results provide insight into how valuable the interventions are perceived by the participants and thereby may be used by decision-makers as complement to cost-effectiveness analyses. WTP for both programs was generally high, probably indicating that participants perceived the intervention as quite valuable. However, further research is needed on the WTP and net benefit of fall prevention programs, as results relied on the specific context of the LiFE-is-LiFE trial. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14322-2. BioMed Central 2022-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9580107/ /pubmed/36258179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14322-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Gottschalk, Sophie
König, Hans-Helmut
Schwenk, Michael
Nerz, Corinna
Becker, Clemens
Klenk, Jochen
Jansen, Carl-Philipp
Dams, Judith
Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective
title Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective
title_full Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective
title_fullStr Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective
title_full_unstemmed Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective
title_short Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective
title_sort willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the lifestyle-integrated functional exercise program from a participant perspective
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9580107/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36258179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14322-2
work_keys_str_mv AT gottschalksophie willingnesstopayforagroupandanindividualversionofthelifestyleintegratedfunctionalexerciseprogramfromaparticipantperspective
AT konighanshelmut willingnesstopayforagroupandanindividualversionofthelifestyleintegratedfunctionalexerciseprogramfromaparticipantperspective
AT schwenkmichael willingnesstopayforagroupandanindividualversionofthelifestyleintegratedfunctionalexerciseprogramfromaparticipantperspective
AT nerzcorinna willingnesstopayforagroupandanindividualversionofthelifestyleintegratedfunctionalexerciseprogramfromaparticipantperspective
AT beckerclemens willingnesstopayforagroupandanindividualversionofthelifestyleintegratedfunctionalexerciseprogramfromaparticipantperspective
AT klenkjochen willingnesstopayforagroupandanindividualversionofthelifestyleintegratedfunctionalexerciseprogramfromaparticipantperspective
AT jansencarlphilipp willingnesstopayforagroupandanindividualversionofthelifestyleintegratedfunctionalexerciseprogramfromaparticipantperspective
AT damsjudith willingnesstopayforagroupandanindividualversionofthelifestyleintegratedfunctionalexerciseprogramfromaparticipantperspective