Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Sep 14;24(9):e25959.
doi: 10.2196/25959.

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

Zhenzhen Xie  1 , Jiayin Chen  1 , Calvin Kalun Or  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Zhenzhen Xie et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Despite the great potential of eHealth, substantial costs are involved in its implementation, and it is essential to know whether these costs can be justified by its benefits. Such needs have led to an increased interest in measuring the benefits of eHealth, especially using the willingness to pay (WTP) metric as an accurate proxy for consumers' perceived benefits of eHealth. This offered us an opportunity to systematically review and synthesize evidence from the literature to better understand WTP for eHealth and its influencing factors.

Objective: This study aimed to provide a systematic review of WTP for eHealth and its influencing factors.

Methods: This study was performed and reported as per the Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and PsycINFO databases were searched from their inception to April 19, 2022. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to calculate WTP values for eHealth (at 2021 US dollar rates) and meta-regression analyses to examine the factors affecting WTP.

Results: A total of 30 articles representing 35 studies were included in the review. We found that WTP for eHealth varied across studies; when expressed as a 1-time payment, it ranged from US $0.88 to US $191.84, and when expressed as a monthly payment, it ranged from US $5.25 to US $45.64. Meta-regression analyses showed that WTP for eHealth was negatively associated with the percentages of women (β=-.76; P<.001) and positively associated with the percentages of college-educated respondents (β=.63; P<.001) and a country's gross domestic product per capita (multiples of US $1000; β=.03; P<.001). Compared with eHealth provided through websites, people reported a lower WTP for eHealth provided through asynchronous communication (β=-1.43; P<.001) and a higher WTP for eHealth provided through medical devices (β=.66; P<.001), health apps (β=.25; P=.01), and synchronous communication (β=.58; P<.001). As for the methods used to measure WTP, single-bounded dichotomous choice (β=2.13; P<.001), double-bounded dichotomous choice (β=2.20; P<.001), and payment scale (β=1.11; P<.001) were shown to obtain higher WTP values than the open-ended format. Compared with ex ante evaluations, ex post evaluations were shown to obtain lower WTP values (β=-.37; P<.001).

Conclusions: WTP for eHealth varied significantly depending on the study population, modality used to provide eHealth, and methods used to measure it. WTP for eHealth was lower among certain population segments, suggesting that these segments may be at a disadvantage in terms of accessing and benefiting from eHealth. We also identified the modalities of eHealth that were highly valued by consumers and offered suggestions for the design of eHealth interventions. In addition, we found that different methods of measuring WTP led to significantly different WTP estimates, highlighting the need to undertake further methodological explorations of approaches to elicit WTP values.

Keywords: contingent valuation; discrete choice experiment; eHealth; meta-analysis; mobile phone; systematic review; willingness to pay.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram of the study selection process. WTP: willingness to pay.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Boogerd EA, Arts T, Engelen LJ, van de Belt TH. "What is eHealth": time for an update? JMIR Res Protoc. 2015 Mar 12;4(1):e29. doi: 10.2196/resprot.4065. https://www.researchprotocols.org/2015/1/e29/ v4i1e29 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Or C. Pre-implementation case studies evaluating workflow and informatics challenges in private primary care clinics for electronic medical record implementation. Int J Healthc Inf Syst Inform. 2015;10(4):56–64. doi: 10.4018/ijhisi.2015100104. - DOI
    1. Or C, Tong E, Tan J, Chan S. Exploring factors affecting voluntary adoption of electronic medical records among physicians and clinical assistants of small or solo private general practice clinics. J Med Syst. 2018 May 29;42(7):121. doi: 10.1007/s10916-018-0971-0.10.1007/s10916-018-0971-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Xie Z, Nacioglu A, Or C. Prevalence, demographic correlates, and perceived impacts of mobile health app use amongst Chinese adults: cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Apr 26;6(4):e103. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9002. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2018/4/e103/ v6i4e103 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Or CK, Karsh BT. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(4):550–60. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2888. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/19390112 M2888 - DOI - PMC - PubMed