Dataset Information

Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:In many countries, medical interventions are reimbursed on the basis of recommendations made by advisory boards and committees that apply multiple criteria in their assessment procedures. Given the diversity of these criteria, it is difficult to find common ground to determine what information is required for setting priorities. OBJECTIVE:To investigate whether society and patients share the same interests and views concerning healthcare priorities. METHODS:We applied a framework of discrete choice models in which respondents were presented with judgmental tasks to elicit their preferences. They were asked to choose between two hypothetical scenarios of patients receiving a new treatment. The scenarios graphically presented treatment outcomes and patient characteristics. Responses were collected through an online survey administered among respondents from the general population (N = 1,253) and patients (N = 1,389) and were analyzed using conditional logit and mixed logit models. RESULTS:The respondents' preferences regarding new medical treatments revealed that they attached the most relative importance to additional survival years, age at treatment, initial health condition, and the cause of disease. Minor differences in the relative importance assigned to three criteria: age at treatment, initial health, and cause of disease were found between the general population and patient samples. Health scenarios in which patients had higher initial health-related quality of life (i.e., a lower burden of disease) were favored over those in which patients' initial health-related quality of life was lower. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, respondents within the general population expressed preferences that were similar to those of the patients. Therefore, priority-setting studies that are based on the perspectives of the general population may be useful for informing decisions on reimbursement and other types of priority-setting processes in health care. Incorporating the preferences of the general population may simultaneously increase public acceptance of these decisions.

SUBMITTER: Nicolet A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7347112 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands.

Nicolet Anna A van Asselt Antoinette D I ADI Vermeulen Karin M KM Krabbe Paul F M PFM

PloS one 20200709 7

<h4>Background</h4>In many countries, medical interventions are reimbursed on the basis of recommendations made by advisory boards and committees that apply multiple criteria in their assessment procedures. Given the diversity of these criteria, it is difficult to find common ground to determine what information is required for setting priorities.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate whether society and patients share the same interests and views concerning healthcare priorities.<h4>Methods</h4>We ap ...[more]

PMID: 32645035

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPolicy makers increasingly need to prioritise between competing health technologies or patient populations. When aiming to align allocation decisions with societal preferences, knowledge and operationalisation of such preferences is indispensable. This study examines the distribution of three views on healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands, labelled "Equal right to healthcare", "Limits to healthcare", and "Effective and efficient healthcare", and their relationship with preferences in willingness to trade-off (WTT) exercises.MethodsA survey including four reimbursement scenarios was conducted in a representative sample of the adult population in the Netherlands (n = 261). Respondents were matched to one of the three views based on their agreement with 14 statements on principles for resource allocation. We tested for WTT differences between respondents with different views and applied logit regression models for examining the relationship between preferences and background characteristics, including views.ResultsNearly 65% of respondents held the view "Equal right to healthcare", followed by "Limits to healthcare" (22.5%), and "Effective and efficient healthcare" (7.1%). Most respondents (75.9%) expressed WTT in at least one scenario and preferred gains in quality of life over life expectancy, maximising gains over limiting inequality, treating children over elderly, and those with adversity over those with an unhealthy lifestyle. Various background characteristics, including the views, were associated with respondents' preferences.ConclusionsMost respondents held an egalitarian view on priority setting, yet the majority was willing to prioritise regardless of their view. Societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting are related. However, respondents' views influence preferences differently in different reimbursement scenarios. As societal views and preferences are heterogeneous and may conflict, aligning allocation decisions with societal preferences remains challenging and any decision may be expected to receive opposition from some group in society.

Project description:Objective: Contemporary healthcare requires physicians to have well developed ethical judgment skills in addition to excellent clinical skills. However, no consensus has been reached on how to best teach ethical judgment skills during medical training. Previous studies revealed inconclusive results and applied varying theoretical frameworks. To date, the students' perspectives on their development in ethical judgment has received less attention. Better insights in the learners' experiences can help to improve educational interventions in medical ethics. Methods: A vignette featuring a challenging case with opposing views between a patient's parents and a physician followed by a questionnaire was presented to a cohort of medical students at a German medical school at three points in time during their medical training (Year 1, 2 and 5). The questionnaire included closed and open-ended questions addressing the participant's preferred, hypothetical actions, their reasoning as well as the resources informing their reasoning. Content analysis was used for qualitative data; frequencies and percentages were used to describe quantitative findings. Results: The response rate remained stable (28%) over the study period. Participants' responses changed overtime. Accepting parents' autonomy in the decision-making process was the majority standpoint of students in year 1 and 2 and became less often cited in year 5 (Year 1/2/5: 68/67/48%). On the contrary, not readily following the parents' decision for medical reasons was a minority standpoint in year 1 and became more prevalent over time (year 1/2/5: 12/17/42%). Judgments were only partly based on ethics training. Instead, participants drew on experiences from their clinical clerkships and their personal lives. Throughout the study, participants did not feel well-prepared to make a judgment in the case (Average 2.7 on a Likert-Scale; 1=very well prepared, 4=very poor). Conclusions: Over the course of their medical training, the participants seemed to increasingly frame the presented vignette as a medical problem. To optimize the development of ethical judgment teaching of ethics should be more integrated in clinical teaching. In addition to the analysis of rare and extreme cases, teaching ethics should also expand on challenges students and junior doctors commonly encounter themselves to promote ethical sensitivity and confidence in students.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Health Product Profile Directory (HPPD) is an online database describing 8-10 key characteristics (such as target population, measures of efficacy and dosage) of product profiles for medicines, vaccines, diagnostics and other products that are intended to be accessed by populations in low- and middle-income countries. The HPPD was developed by TDR on behalf of WHO and launched on 15 May 2019. METHODS:The contents of the HPPD were downloaded into an Excel™ spreadsheet via the open access interface and analysed to identify the number of health product profiles by type, disease, year of publication, status, author organization and safety information. RESULTS:The HPPD contains summaries of 215 health product profiles published between 2008 and May 2019, 117 (54%) of which provide a hyperlink to the detailed publication from which the summary was extracted, and the remaining 98 provide an email contact for further information. A total of 55 target disease or health conditions are covered, with 210 profiles describing a product with an infectious disease as the target. Only 5 product profiles in the HPPD describe a product for a non-communicable disease. Four diseases account for 40% of product profiles in the HPPD; these are tuberculosis (33 profiles, 15%), malaria (31 profiles, 14%), HIV (13 profiles, 6%) and Chagas (10 profiles, 5%). CONCLUSION:The HPPD provides a new tool to inform priority-setting in global health - it includes all product profiles authored by WHO (n = 51). There is a need to standardise nomenclature to more clearly distinguish between strategic publications (describing research and development (R&D) priorities or preferred characteristics) compared to target product profiles to guide a specific candidate product undergoing R&D. It is recommended that all profiles published in the HPPD define more clearly what affordability means in the context where the product is intended to be used and all profiles should include a statement of safety. Combining the analysis from HPPD to a mapping of funds available for R&D and those products in the R&D pipeline would create a better overview of global health priorities and how they are supported. Such analysis and increased transparency should take us a step closer to measuring and improving coordination of efforts in global health R&D.

Project description:ContextIt remains unclear whether there would be societal support for a lifestyle criterion for the healthcare priority setting. This study examines the viewpoints of experts in healthcare and the public regarding support for a lifestyle-related decision criterion, relative to support for the currently applied criteria, in the healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands.MethodsWe conducted a Q methodology study in samples of experts in healthcare (n = 37) and the public (n = 44). Participants (total sample N = 81) ranked 34 statements that reflected currently applied decision criteria as well as a lifestyle criterion for setting priorities in healthcare. The ranking data were subjected to principal component analysis, followed by oblimin rotation, to identify clusters of participants with similar viewpoints.FindingsWe identified four viewpoints. Participants with Viewpoint 1 believe that treatments that have been proven to be effective should be reimbursed. Those with Viewpoint 2 believe that life is precious and every effort should be made to save a life, even when treatment still results in a very poor state of health. Those with Viewpoint 3 accept government intervention in unhealthy lifestyles and believe that individual responsibility should be taken into account in reimbursement decisions. Participants with Viewpoint 4 attribute importance to the cost-effectiveness of treatments; however, when priorities have to be set, treatment effects are considered most important. All viewpoints were supported by a mix of public and experts, but Viewpoint 1 was mostly supported by experts and the other viewpoints were mostly supported by members of the public.ConclusionsThis study identified four distinct viewpoints on the healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands, each supported by a mix of experts and members of the public. There seems to be some, but limited, support for a lifestyle criterion-in particular, among members of the public. Experts seem to favour the decision criteria that are currently applied. The diversity in views deserves attention when policymakers want to adhere to societal preferences and increase policy acceptance.

Dataset Information

Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands.

Publications

Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets