Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 25, 2025
Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits
Published on: September 27, 2019
Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from
Sophie Gottschalk1, Hans-Helmut König2, Michael Schwenk3,4
1Department of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. s.gottschalk@uke.de.
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.
More Related Videos
05:59Visualization of Intensity Levels to Reduce the Gap Between Self-Reported and Directly Measured Physical Activity
Published on: March 7, 2019
08:36The Immersive Cleveland Clinic Virtual Reality Shopping Platform for the Assessment of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living
Published on: July 28, 2022
Related Concept Videos
00:57Inclusive Fitness
01:27Exercise and Muscle Performance
Endurance exercises
Endurance exercises involve running, swimming, or cycling, which require repetitive movements with low force output. When a person engages in endurance exercise, a few noticeable changes occur in their skeletal muscles. For instance, the number of capillaries...
01:18Models of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention II
The agent-host-environment model states that disease results...
01:29Assessment of the Gastrointestinal System II: Health Perception Pattern
Health Perception Patterns
Health perception patterns offer valuable insights into a patient's lifestyle habits and how they may impact their GI health. These patterns include:
01:25Models of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention I
The health belief model (HBM) attempts to predict health-related behavior in specific belief patterns. According to the HBM, a person's...
01:26Levels of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention
In primary prevention, actions taken before disease onset prevent the disease from...