Patients' Willingness to Pay for Electronic Communication with Their General Practitioner

Overview

Journal Eur J Health Econ

Specialty Health Services

Date 2006 Dec 23

PMID 17186205

Citations 17

Authors

Trine Strand Bergmo

Silje Camilla Wangberg

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Willingness to Pay for Telemedicine Services Among Uninsured Individuals in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Almalki Z, Alrashdi A, AlHuzaimi D, Alotaibi J, Alqahtani M, Alzahrani R Int J Gen Med. 2024; 17:3879-3891.

PMID: 39257613 PMC: 11385354. DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S472926.

Enhancing telehealth services development in Pakistani healthcare sectors through examining various medical service quality characteristics.

Saifullah , Ma Z, Li M, Maqbool M, Chen J Front Public Health. 2024; 12:1376534.

PMID: 39045155 PMC: 11263101. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1376534.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on knowledge, perceptions, and effects of telemedicine among the general population of Pakistan: A national survey.

Tariq W, Asar M, Junaid Tahir M, Ullah I, Ahmad Q, Raza A Front Public Health. 2023; 10:1036800.

PMID: 36684982 PMC: 9849806. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1036800.

Consumers' Willingness to Pay for eHealth and Its Influencing Factors: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Xie Z, Chen J, Or C J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24(9):e25959.

PMID: 36103227 PMC: 9520394. DOI: 10.2196/25959.

The Willingness to Pay for Telemedicine Among Patients With Chronic Diseases: Systematic Review.

Chua V, Koh J, Koh C, Tyagi S J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24(4):e33372.

PMID: 35416779 PMC: 9047785. DOI: 10.2196/33372.

References

Sittig D, King S, Hazlehurst B . A survey of patient-provider e-mail communication: what do patients think?. Int J Med Inform. 2001; 61(1):71-80. DOI: 10.1016/s1386-5056(00)00134-9. View

Shiell A, Gold L . If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation. Health Econ. 2003; 12(11):909-19. DOI: 10.1002/hec.777. View

White C, Moyer C, Stern D, Katz S . A content analysis of e-mail communication between patients and their providers: patients get the message. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004; 11(4):260-7. PMC: 436072. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M1445. View

Moyer C, Stern D, Dobias K, Cox D, Katz S . Bridging the electronic divide: patient and provider perspectives on e-mail communication in primary care. Am J Manag Care. 2002; 8(5):427-33. View

Couchman G, Forjuoh S, Rascoe T . E-mail communications in family practice: what do patients expect?. J Fam Pract. 2001; 50(5):414-8. View

Whynes D, Frew E, Wolstenholme J . A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. J Health Econ. 2003; 22(4):555-74. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-6296(03)00006-7. View

Olsen J, Smith R . Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care. Health Econ. 2001; 10(1):39-52. DOI: 10.1002/1099-1050(200101)10:1<39::aid-hec563>3.0.co;2-e. View

Fridsma D, Ford P, Altman R . A survey of patient access to electronic mail: attitudes, barriers, and opportunities. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994; :15-9. PMC: 2247793. View

Bergmo T, Kummervold P, Gammon D, Dahl L . Electronic patient-provider communication: will it offset office visits and telephone consultations in primary care?. Int J Med Inform. 2005; 74(9):705-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.06.002. View

10.

Katz S, Moyer C . The emerging role of online communication between patients and their providers. J Gen Intern Med. 2004; 19(9):978-83. PMC: 1492520. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30432.x. View

11.

Smith R . 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. 2005; 15(3):281-93. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1055. View

12.

Car J, Sheikh A . Email consultations in health care: 2--acceptability and safe application. BMJ. 2004; 329(7463):439-42. PMC: 514210. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.329.7463.439. View

13.

Diener A, OBRIEN B, Gafni A . Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 1998; 7(4):313-26. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199806)7:4<313::aid-hec350>3.0.co;2-b. View

14.

Houston T, Sands D, Jenckes M, Ford D . Experiences of patients who were early adopters of electronic communication with their physician: satisfaction, benefits, and concerns. Am J Manag Care. 2004; 10(9):601-8. View

15.

Andreassen H, Sandaune A, Gammon D, Hjortdahl P . [Norwegian use of Internet health services]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2003; 122(17):1640-4. View

16.

Tversky A, Kahneman D . Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974; 185(4157):1124-31. DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. View

17.

Kummervold P, Trondsen M, Andreassen H, Gammon D, Hjortdahl P . [Patient-physician interaction over the internet]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2004; 124(20):2633-6. View

18.

Whynes D, Philips Z, Frew E . Think of a number... any number?. Health Econ. 2005; 14(11):1191-5. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1001. View

19.

Sittig D . Results of a content analysis of electronic messages (email) sent between patients and their physicians. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2003; 3:11. PMC: 270029. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-3-11. View

20.

Smith R . Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ. 2003; 12(8):609-28. DOI: 10.1002/hec.755. View