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

Abstract

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.

Willingness-to-pay in physical activity: how much older adults value the community-wide initiatives programs?

“…The findings of this study also indicate that income had a positive association with WTP in both Tobit models, where increasing income will also increase the WTP. The significance of income in predicting WTP in PA programs has also been reported by many scholars, e.g., Gottschalk et al (22), Herens et al ( 29), and Romé et al (39) which indicate that the valuation of PA programs is differentiated by respondent socioeconomic status (SES).…”

“…To address this gap, the "Willingness to Pay" (WTP) indicator has become a popular method in the economic field to estimate the value individuals assign to goods or services in non-market contexts (21). WTP represents the maximum amount individuals are willing to pay for a particular investment in a specific scenario (22). Understanding the level of WTP is highly valuable for policymakers and healthcare providers when making decisions on resource allocation within budgetary constraints (21,23,24).…”