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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nicolet, Anna, van Asselt, Antoinette D. I., Vermeulen, Karin M., Krabbe, Paul F. M.
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