Dataset Information

Use of real-world evidence in cancer drug funding decisions in Canada: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives.

ABSTRACT: Background: Real-world evidence (RWE) can provide postmarket data to inform whether funded cancer drugs yield expected outcomes and value for money, but it is unclear how to incorporate RWE into Canadian cancer drug funding decisions. As part of the Canadian Real-World Evidence Value for Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration, this study aimed to explore stakeholder perspectives on the current state of RWE in Canada to inform a Canadian framework for use of RWE in cancer drug funding decisions.

Methods: This was a qualitative descriptive study. Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted from April to July 2018. Participants were Canadian and international stakeholders who had experience with RWE and drug funding decision-making. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data.

Results: Thirty stakeholders participated in the study. Five themes were identified. Stakeholders indicated that RWE had value in cancer drug funding decisions. However, a cultural shift is needed to adopt RWE in decision-making. Further, the Canadian infrastructure for real-world data is currently inadequate for decision-making, and there is a need for committed investment in building capacity to collect and analyze RWE. Finally, there is a need for increased collaboration among key stakeholders.

Interpretation: The findings of this study suggest that if RWE is to be used in drug funding decisions, there is a need for a cultural shift, improved data infrastructure, committed investment in capacity building and increased stakeholder collaboration. Together with local stakeholder engagement, application of these findings may contribute to optimizing implementation of RWE.

SUBMITTER: Clausen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7721249 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of real-world evidence in cancer drug funding decisions in Canada: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives.

Clausen Marc M Mighton Chloe C Kiflen Ruhi R Sebastian Agnes A Dai Wei Fang WF Mercer Rebecca E RE Beca Jaclyn M JM Isaranuwatchai Wanrudee W Chan Kelvin K W KKW Bombard Yvonne Y

CMAJ open 20201001 4

<h4>Background</h4>Real-world evidence (RWE) can provide postmarket data to inform whether funded cancer drugs yield expected outcomes and value for money, but it is unclear how to incorporate RWE into Canadian cancer drug funding decisions. As part of the Canadian Real-World Evidence Value for Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration, this study aimed to explore stakeholder perspectives on the current state of RWE in Canada to inform a Canadian framework for use of RWE in cancer drug funding dec ...[more]

PMID: 33234584

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare stakeholders have pronounced both enthusiasm and apprehension over the expanding use of real-world evidence (RWE). The patient community-those who benefit from new treatments but are vulnerable to potential safety risks and whose routine medical encounters are used to generate RWE-has been less vocal. Understanding patient perspectives on the use of RWE to guide clinical decision making and inform regulatory decisions and value assessments is imperative.MethodsWe convened a day-long, multi-stakeholder roundtable in Washington D.C., USA, on 31 July 2017 to gather patient-community views on RWE and related concerns and the communications, information and tools needed by patients to understand, trust, and use RWE. Participants included a convenience sample of National Health Council (NHC) members primarily representing patient groups as well as non-patient members with an interest in RWE. Participants were organized into small, pre-assigned groups, ensuring representativeness across stakeholders and patient leadership. Discussions, including storyboards, notes, and illustrative examples were captured and later analyzed thematically by NHC staff.ResultsTen RWE themes emerged: (1) most patients were unaware of RWE and its actual or potential uses, (2) common definitions for real-world data and RWE are needed, (3) patient organizations need RWE skills and tools, (4) patient-scientist partnerships can help differentiate high-quality RWE, (5) RWE should inform decision making, (6) clinician support is needed for RWE uptake in patient decision making, (7) communications to patients should be balanced and empowering, (8) context of use impacts RWE acceptability/trust, (9) privacy/data ownership require clarity, and (10) patient-generated data are also real-world data (RWD).ConclusionPatients see great possibility in using RWE to understand how a treatment works-to find someone that "looks like me" as assurance of how a treatment might benefit them personally. Patient groups will play a critical role in helping to educate constituents on understanding, contributing to, and using RWE. To maximize patient uptake and the co-development and application of RWE, patient groups require education and tools.

Project description:BackgroundEven though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented.MethodsIn this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders' perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art.ResultsA total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system.ConclusionsThis research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach.

Project description:BackgroundBy enabling individuals with hearing loss to collect their own hearing data in their personal real-world settings, there is scope to improve clinical care, empower consumers, and support shared clinical decision-making and problem-solving. Clinician support for this approach has been established in a separate study.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore, for consumers with hearing loss, their (1) experiences of listening difficulties, to identify the data an app could usefully collect; (2) preferences regarding the features of mobile apps in general; and (3) opinions on the potential value and desirable features of a yet-to-be designed app for documenting listening difficulties in real-world settings.MethodsA total of 3 focus groups involved 27 adults who self-reported hearing loss. Most were fitted with hearing devices. A facilitator used a topic guide to generate discussion, which was video- and audio-recorded. Verbatim transcriptions were analyzed using inductive content analysis.ResultsConsumers supported the concept of a mobile app that would facilitate the documenting of listening difficulties in real-world settings important to the individual. Consumers shared valuable insights about their listening difficulties, which will help determine the data that should be collected through an app designed to document these challenges. This information included early indicators of hearing loss (eg, mishearing, difficulty communicating in groups and on the phone, and speaking overly loudly) and prompts to seek hearing devices (eg, spousal pressure and the advice or example provided by others, and needing to rely on lipreading or to constantly request others to repeat themselves). It also included the well-known factors that influence listening difficulties (eg, reverberation, background noise, group conversations) and the impacts and consequences of their difficulties (eg, negative impacts on relationships and employment, social isolation and withdrawal, and negative emotions). Consumers desired a visual-based app that provided options for how data could be collected and how the user could enter data into an app, and which enabled data sharing with a clinician.ConclusionsThese findings provide directions for the future co-design and piloting of a prototype mobile app to provide data that are useful for increasing self-awareness of listening difficulties and can be shared with a clinician.

Project description:BackgroundeHealth interventions may represent the way forward in following up patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) after hospital discharge to support them in coping with the illness, strengthen their self-management, and increase their quality of life. By involving end users of eHealth in cocreation processes when designing eHealth solutions, an acceptable and relevant product can be secured. Stakeholders' perspectives could aid in closing the gap between research-developed products and the implementation of eHealth services in real-life scenarios.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the views of patients with CRC, their informal caregivers, and health care professionals (HCPs) on information technology and the design of eHealth support in CRC care.MethodsA qualitative, explorative design was used to conduct 31 semistructured individual interviews with 41% (13/31) patients with CRC, 29% (9/31) informal caregivers, and 29% (9/31) HCPs recruited from the gastrosurgical ward of a university hospital in southwestern Norway. A semistructured interview guide was used for data collection, and the data were analyzed by systematic text condensation.ResultsParticipants described the diverse experiences of patients with CRC seeking web-based information. Age and digital competence were highlighted as influencers of the use of information technology. Patients rarely received advice from HCPs about relevant and secure websites containing information on CRC diagnosis and treatment. Features of desired eHealth interventions in following up patients with CRC were patient education, health monitoring, and communication with HCPs.ConclusionsSeveral elements affect the activities of patients with CRC seeking health information. Age, inexperience with computer technology, and lack of access to web-based health information may reduce the ability of patients with CRC to engage in decision-making processes regarding illness and treatment. An eHealth service for patients with CRC should comprise features for information, education, and support for self-management and should aim to be individually adapted to the patient's age and digital competence. Involving end users of eHealth services is necessary to ensure high-quality tailored services that are perceived as user friendly and relevant to the end users.

Dataset Information

Use of real-world evidence in cancer drug funding decisions in Canada: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives.

Publications

Use of real-world evidence in cancer drug funding decisions in Canada: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets