Why should regulators consider using patient preferences in benefit-risk assessment?

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 1-4

  Van Til, Janine A ^a   IJzerman, Maarten J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG LEGISLATION; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; MEDICAL DEVICE REGULATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT;

DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DRUG THERAPY; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; EUROPE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 84898831027     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0118-6     Document Type: Editorial

References (26)

1. Raine J, et al. European perspective on risk management and drug safety. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(5):650-4.
2. Abadie E et al. Benefit-risk methodology project. 2009;EMEA/108979/2009. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/Report/2011/07/WC500109477. pdf
3. Leong J, et al. Is there a need for a universal benefit-risk assessment framework for medicines? Regulatory and industry perspectives. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(9):1004-12.
4. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science Technol Human Values. 2005;30(2):251-90. (Pubitemid 40465733)
5. Coulter A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient's perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(1):92-6. (Pubitemid 38656968)
6. Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):30-5. (Pubitemid 46648297)
7. Garrison LP Jr, Towse A, Bresnahan BW. Assessing a structured, quantitative health outcomes approach to drug risk-benefit analysis. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26(3):684-95.
8. Parry G, Moyser G, Day N. Political participation and democracy in Britain, vol. xviii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992. p. 509.
9. Pivik J, Rode E, Ward C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy. 2004;69(2):253-68. (Pubitemid 38801501)
10. Hansen HP, Lee A. Patient aspects and involvement in HTA: an academic perspective. Pharm Policy Law. 2011;13(3):123-8.
11. Bridges J, et al. Patient preference methods: a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;12(6):4-7.
12. Fraenkel L. Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decision making. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 Suppl):80S-93S.
13. Doward LC, McKenna SP. Defining patient-reported outcomes. Value Health. 2004;7(Suppl 1(0)):S4-8.
14. Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(4):213-24.
15. Brennan DF. Patient preferences. Ann Emerg Med. 1995;26(2):240-1.
16. Brennan PF, Strombom I. Improving health care by understanding patient preferences: the role of computer technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998;5(3):257-62. (Pubitemid 28222032)
17. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences: II. Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(5):459-71. (Pubitemid 19165912)
18. Pavlova M, Groot W, van Merode G. The importance of quality, access and price to health care consumers in Bulgaria: a self-explicated approach. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2003;18(4):343-61. (Pubitemid 38088659)
19. Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74(2):132-57.
20. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7248):1530-3. (Pubitemid 30330316)
21. van Til JA, et al. The use of multi-criteria decision analysis weight elicitation techniques in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study. Patient. 2008;1(2):127-35.
22. Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ. 1998;7(4):373-8. (Pubitemid 28339965)
23. Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):259-67.
24. Factors to consider when making benefit-risk determinations in medical device premarket approval and de novo classifications, D.o.H.a.H.S.F.a.D. Administration, Editor. 2012, Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration
25. Oliver S, et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004. 8(15):1-148, III-IV.
26. Vogt F, Schwappach DL, Bridges JF. Accounting for tastes: a German perspective on the inclusion of patient preferences in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(5):419-23. (Pubitemid 43765212)