Societal views on orphan drugs: Cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 341, Issue 7774, 2010, Pages 642-644

  Desser, Arna S ^a   Gyrd Hansen, Dorte ^b   Olsen, Jan Abel ^c   Grepperud, Sverre ^a   Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ORPHAN DRUG;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DRUG COST; FEMALE; FUNDING; GROUPS BY AGE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT RIGHT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RARE DISEASE; RATING SCALE; SOCIAL ASPECT; WEB BROWSER;

ADULT; AGED; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DRUG COSTS; FEMALE; FINANCING, ORGANIZED; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RARE DISEASES;

EID: 77957171034     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c4715     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity? BMJ 2005;331:1016-9.
2. Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, Cleemput I, Simoens S. Budget impact analysis of orphan drugs in Belgium: estimates from 2008 to 2013. J Med Econ 2010; published online 18 May.
3. Hughes DA, Tunnage B, Yeo ST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM 2005;98:829-36.
4. McKie J, Richardson J. The rule of rescue. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:2407-19.
5. Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanavos P, Ubel P, Rovira J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:36-42. (Pubitemid 46648298)
6. McCabe C, Tsuchiya A, Claxton K, Raftery J. Orphan drugs revisited. QJM 2006;99:341-5.
7. McCabe C, Tsuchiya A, Claxton K, Raftery J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs: a comment on Drummond et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:397-401. (Pubitemid 46956891)
8. Helse - OG Omsorgsdepartementet. NOU 1987:23. Retningslinjer for prioriteringer innen norsk helsetjeneste.1987. www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/hod/ dok/nouer/1999/nou-1999-2/4/2.html?id=350994.
9. Norwegian Government. Patients' Rights Act. 1999. www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ ulovdata/lov-19990702-063-eng.pdf.
10. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Citizens Council report: ultraorphan drugs. 2004. www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/Citizens-Council- Ultraorphan.pdf.
11. EQ-5D. EuroQol. 2010. www.euroqol.org/.
12. Tversky A, Shafir E. Choice under conflict: the dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science 1992;3:358-61.
13. Nord E, Richardson J, Street A, Kuhse H, Singer P. Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues. Soc Sci Med 1995;41:1429-37.
14. Ubel PA, DeKay ML, Baron J, Asch DA. Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints - is it equitable? N Engl JMed 1996;334:1174-7.
15. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981;211:453-8. (Pubitemid 11265613)