Cargando…
Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands
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 infor...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7347112/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32645035 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235666 |
_version_ | 1783556529742413824 |
---|---|
author | Nicolet, Anna van Asselt, Antoinette D. I. Vermeulen, Karin M. Krabbe, Paul F. M. |
author_facet | Nicolet, Anna van Asselt, Antoinette D. I. Vermeulen, Karin M. Krabbe, Paul F. M. |
author_sort | Nicolet, Anna |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7347112 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73471122020-07-17 Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands Nicolet, Anna van Asselt, Antoinette D. I. Vermeulen, Karin M. Krabbe, Paul F. M. PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2020-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7347112/ /pubmed/32645035 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235666 Text en © 2020 Nicolet et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Nicolet, Anna van Asselt, Antoinette D. I. Vermeulen, Karin M. Krabbe, Paul F. M. Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands |
title | Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands |
title_full | Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands |
title_fullStr | Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands |
title_full_unstemmed | Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands |
title_short | Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands |
title_sort | value judgment of new medical treatments: societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in the netherlands |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7347112/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32645035 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235666 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nicoletanna valuejudgmentofnewmedicaltreatmentssocietalandpatientperspectivestoinformprioritysettinginthenetherlands AT vanasseltantoinettedi valuejudgmentofnewmedicaltreatmentssocietalandpatientperspectivestoinformprioritysettinginthenetherlands AT vermeulenkarinm valuejudgmentofnewmedicaltreatmentssocietalandpatientperspectivestoinformprioritysettinginthenetherlands AT krabbepaulfm valuejudgmentofnewmedicaltreatmentssocietalandpatientperspectivestoinformprioritysettinginthenetherlands |