The use of research evidence on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline development: exploratory study into current state of play and potential barriers

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Cecile MA Utens (1) (2)
  Trudy van der Weijden (3)
  Manuela A Joore (1) (2)
  Carmen D Dirksen (1) (2)
  
  1. Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment ; Maastricht University Medical Centre ; P.O. Box 5800 ; 6202 AZ ; Maastricht ; The Netherlands
  2. CAPHRI ; School for Public Health and Primary Care ; Faculty of Health ; Medicine and Life Sciences ; Maastricht University ; P.O. Box 616 ; 6200 MD ; Maastricht ; the Netherlands
  3. CAPHRI ; School for Public Health and Primary Care ; Department of Family Medicine ; Faculty of Health ; Medicine and Life Sciences ; Maastricht University ; P.O. Box 616 ; 6200 MD ; Maastricht ; the Netherlands
  
• 关键词：Patient preference ; Pharmaceutical coverage ; Clinical practice guideline
• 刊名：BMC Health Services Research
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：December 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：14
• 期：1
• 全文大小：236 KB
• 参考文献：1. Ryan, M, Scott, DA, Reeves, C, Bate, A, Teijlingen, ER, Russell, EM, Napper, M, Robb, CM (2001) Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 5: pp. 1-186 5050" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  2. Bridges, JF, Jones, C (2007) Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23: pp. 30-35
  3. Chong, CA, Chen, IJ, Naglie, G, Krahn, MD (2009) How well do guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences?. J Gen Intern Med 24: pp. 977-982 CrossRef
  4. Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, Hansen, HP, Lo Scalzo, A, Mossman, J, Single, A (2010) Patients鈥?perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26: pp. 334-340 5" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  5. Krahn, M, Naglie, G (2008) The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA 20: pp. 436-438
  6. van de Bovenkamp HM, Zuiderent-Jerak T. An empirical study of patient participation in guideline development: exploring the potential for articulating patient knowledge in evidence-based epistemic settings. Health Expect 2013. Epub ahead of print.
  7. Bovenkamp, H, Trappenburg, M (2009) Reconsidering patient participation in guideline development. Health Care Anal 17: pp. 198-216 CrossRef
  8. Boivin, A, Green, J, Meulen, J, Legare, F, Nolte, E (2009) Why consider patients鈥?preferences? A discourse analysis of clinical practice guideline developers. Med Care 47: pp. 908-915 58" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  9. Brazier, JE, Dixon, S, Ratcliffe, J (2009) The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis: a conflict of values?. Pharmacoeconomics 27: pp. 705-712 5/11314840-000000000-00000" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  10. L茅gar茅, F, Boivin, A, Weijden, T, Pakenham, C, Burgers, J, L茅gar茅, J, St-Jacques, S, Gagnon, S (2011) Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: a knowledge synthesis of existing programs. Med Decis Making 31: pp. E45-E74 CrossRef
  11. Wensing, M, Elwyn, G (2003) Improving the quality of health care. Methods for incorporating patients鈥?views in health care. BMJ 326: pp. 877-879 CrossRef
  12. Dirksen, CD, Utens, CMA, Joore, MA, Barneveld, TA, Boer, B, Dreesens, DHH, Laarhoven, H, Smit, C, Stiggelbout, AM, Weijden, T (2013) Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions: are we up for it? Protocol of the Patient-VIP Study. Implement Sci 8: pp. 64 5908-8-64" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  13. Brooker, AS, Carcone, S, Witteman, W, Krahn, M (2013) Quantitative patient preference evidence for health technology assessment: a case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 29: pp. 290-300 CrossRef
  14. MacLean, S, Mulla, S, Akl, EA, Jankowski, M, Vandvik, PO, Ebrahim, S, McLeod, S, Bhatnagar, N, Guyatt, GH (2012) Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 141: pp. e1S-e23S CrossRef
  15. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA). Therapiehinweise gem盲脽 搂 92 Abs. 2 Satz 7 SGB V i. V. m. 搂 17聽AM-RL zur wirtschaftlichen Verordnungsweise von Artzneimitteln; 2012.
  16. College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ). Etanercept voor behandeling van actieve reumatoide artritis bij volwassenen. Etanercept voor behandeling van actieve polyarticulaire juveniele chronische artritits bij kinderen van 4鈥?7 jaar; 2000.
  17. Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS). Transparancy Committee opinion Humira 40聽mg, solution for injection in pre-filled syringes (CIP 362 230鈥?); Humira庐 40聽mg, solution for injection in pre-filled pen; 2010.
  18. Meads, C, Jit, M, Tsourapas, A, Ashfaq, K, Connock, M, Fry-Smith, A, Jobanputra, P (2009) Tocilizomab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A single technology appraisal. Health Technology Assessment Collaboration, West Midlands
  19. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE technology appraisal guidance 247. Tocilizumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (rapid review of technology appraisal guidance 198); 2012.
  20. Scottish Medical Consortium (SMC). Tocilizumab 20聽mg/mL concentrate for infusion (RoActemra庐) SMC No. (754/12); 2012.
  21. College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ). Pemetrexed (Alimta庐) bij eerstelijnsbehandeling NSCLC; 2009.
  22. Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS). Transparancy Committee opinion Alimta庐 100聽mg, powder for concentrate solution for infusions (CIP 383-080-2) Pack of 1; Alimta庐 500聽mg, powder concentrate solution for infusion (CIP 5565-825-3) Pack of 1.2010.
  23. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE technology appraisal guidance 181. Pemetrexed for the first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer; 2010.
  24. Scottish Medical Consortium (SMC). Pemexetred 100聽mg, 500聽mg, powder for concentrate solution for infusion (Alimta庐) SMC No. (531/09); 2010.
  25. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). 123 Management of early rheumatoid arthritis, a national clinical guideline; 2011.
  26. Nederlandse Vereniging voor Reumatologie. Richtlijn diagnostiek en behandeling van reumato茂de artritis. Nederlandse Vereniging voor Reumatologie, Alphen aan de Rijn; 2009.
  27. Scheider, M, Lelgeman, M, Abholz, HH, Blumenroth, M, Fl眉gge, C, Gerken, M, J盲niche, H, Kunz, K, Kr眉ger, K, Mau, W, Specker, C, Zellner, M (2011) Interdisziplin盲re Leitlinie Management der fr眉hen rheumatoiden Arthritis.
  Rheumatoid arthritis: national clinical guideline for management and treatment in adults. The National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions, London
  28. Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS). Recommandations professionnelles - Polyarthrite rhumato茂de, Prise en charge en phase; 2007.
  29. Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland. Prostaatcarcinoom - Landelijke richtlijn, versie 1.0; 2007.
  30. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. Generalised anxiety disorder in adults: management in primary, secondary and community care. National guideline number 113: The British Psychological Society and The Royal College of Psychiatrists; 2011.
  31. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Management of chronic heart failure - A national clinical guideline; 2007.
  Guide for doctors: long-term conditions coronary artery disease.
  32. Das 脛rztliche Zentrum f眉r Qualit盲t in der Medizin (脛ZQ). S3- Guideline/National Disease Management Guideline Unipolar Depression. 2012.
  33. Mastenbroek, CG, Meer, FM, Zwaap, J, Rikken, F, Polman, P (2006) Pakketbeheer in de praktijk. College voor zorgverzekeringen, Diemen
  34. Staal PCL, G (2007) Beoordeling stand van de wetenschap en praktijk. College Voor Zorgverzekeraars, Diemen
  Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London
  Patient Interest Group - Submission Guidance and Template. Scottish Medical Consortium, Glasgow
  35. Bekkering, GE, Kleijnen, J (2008) Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 9: pp. 5-29 5" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  Contributing to a technology appraisal - a guide for patient/carer groups. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London
  36. Stafinski, T, Menon, D, Davis, C, McCabe, C (2011) Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 3: pp. 117-186 CrossRef
  37. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). SIGN 50 a guideline developers handbook; 2011.
  38. Broerse, J, Ham, L, Veen, S, Pittens, C, Tulder, M (2010) Inventarisatie patientenparticipatie bij richtlijnontwikkeling. Athena Instituut, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam
  39. Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de gezondheidszorg CBO. Evidence-based richtlijn ontwikkeling handleiding voor werkgroepleden; 2007.
  The guidelines manual. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London
  40. Thomas, V (2009) Patient and carer involvement in NICE clinical guidelines.
  41. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, Kunz, R, Falck-Ytter, Y, Alonso-Coello, P, Schunemann, HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336: pp. 924-926 CrossRef
  42. Brazier, J, Akehurst, R, Brennan, A, Dolan, P, Claxton, K, McCabe, C, Sculpher, M, Tsuchyia, A (2005) Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states?. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 4: pp. 201-208 5/00148365-200504040-00002" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  43. Coast, J, Smith, RD, Lorgelly, P (2008) Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: the spread of ideas in health economics. Soc Sci Med 67: pp. 1190-1198 CrossRef
  44. Umscheid, CA (2009) Should guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences?. J Gen Intern Med 24: pp. 988-990 55-0" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  45. Kelson, M, Amis, L (2008) Patient and care involvement in health technology appraisal: what do patient organisations say?. HTAi workshop, Montreal
  
• 刊物主题：Public Health; Health Administration; Health Informatics; Nursing Management/Nursing Research;
• 出版者：BioMed Central
• ISSN：1472-6963

文摘

Background The patient perspective is increasingly considered in healthcare policy decisions. The use of research on patient preferences seems however limited. Using the available research on patient preferences would make healthcare policy decisions more evidence-based regarding the patient perspective. Objective of this study is to investigate whether and how results of research on patient preferences are incorporated in current procedures for pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline (CPG) development. Methods A document analysis on procedure descriptions was combined with case studies. Analyses were performed for five European countries. In the document analysis we systematically checked whether the procedure provides guidance on the systematic use of research on patient preferences, and whether the search and use of research on patient preferences is mentioned in the decision making procedure. In the case studies, which were for exploratory purposes, we scored whether or not research question on patient preferences were formulated, whether or not a search strategy including terms relating to patient preferences was mentioned, whether results of this search strategy were shown and finally, how many references with preference-related terms were included in the reference list of the case. Results None of the procedures for pharmaceutical coverage decisions mentions the systematic consideration of research on patient preferences. For CPG development, the Scottish procedure refers to a mandatory literature search. In the Netherlands this step is optional. In the case studies for pharmaceutical coverage decisions only one reference related to patient preferences was found. Some of the case studies for CPG included research questions, search strategies and references relating to patient preferences. Conclusions This study illustrates that systematic consideration of research on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and guideline development is limited, or if taken into account, this is not visible. This contrasts the strong movement towards patient involvement in health care. Several potential barriers may explain the limited use of research on patient preferences.