Parents’ willingness to pay for diminishing children's pain during blood sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood sampling is a frequent medical procedure, very often considered as a stressful experience by children. Local anesthetics have been developed, but are expensive and not reimbursed by insurance companies in our country. We wanted to assess parents' willingness to pay (WTP) for this kind of drug. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over 6 months, all parents of children presenting for general (GV) or specialized visit (SV) with blood sampling. WTP was assessed through three scenarios [avoiding blood sampling (ABS), using the drug on prescription (PD), or over the counter (OTC)], with a payment card system randomized to ascending or descending order of prices (AO or DO). RESULTS: Fifty-six responses were collected (34 GV, 22 SV, 27 AO and 29 DO), response rate 40%. Response distribution was wide, with median WTP of 40 for ABS, 25 for PD, 10 for OTC, which is close to the drug's real price. Responses were similar for GV and SV. Median WTP amounted to 0.71, 0.67, 0.20% of respondents' monthly income for the three scenarios, respectively, with a maximum at 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing parents' WTP in an outpatient setting is difficult, with wide result distribution, but median WTP is close to the real drug price. This finding could be used to promote insurance coverage for this drug.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".