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

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Utens, Cecile M A ^a,b   Van Der Weijden, Trudy ^b   Joore, Manuela A ^a,b   Dirksen, Carmen D ^a,b  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Clinical practice guideline; Patient preference; Pharmaceutical coverage

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

DECISION MAKING; EUROPE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INSURANCE; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RESEARCH; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION;

DECISION MAKING; EUROPE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; INSURANCE COVERAGE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RESEARCH;

EID: 84920843659     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-014-0540-2     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, Napper M, Robb CM: Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001, 5:1-186.
2. Bridges JF, Jones C: Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007, 23:30-35.
3. Chong CA, Chen IJ, Naglie G, Krahn MD: How well do guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences? J Gen Intern Med 2009, 24:977-982.
4. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, Single A: Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010, 26:334-340.
5. Krahn M, Naglie G: The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA 2008, 20:436-438.
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. van de Bovenkamp H, Trappenburg M: Reconsidering patient participation in guideline development. Health Care Anal 2009, 17:198-216.
8. Boivin A, Green J, van der Meulen J, Legare F, Nolte E: Why consider patients' preferences? A discourse analysis of clinical practice guideline developers. Med Care 2009, 47:908-915.
9. Brazier JE, Dixon S, Ratcliffe J: The role of patient preferences in costeffectiveness analysis: a conflict of values? Pharmacoeconomics 2009, 27:705-712.
10. Légaré F, Boivin A, van der Weijden T, Pakenham C, Burgers J, Légaré J, St-Jacques S, Gagnon S: Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: a knowledge synthesis of existing programs. Med Decis Making 2011, 31:E45-E74.
11. Wensing M, Elwyn G: Improving the quality of health care. Methods for incorporating patients' views in health care. BMJ 2003, 326:877-879.
12. Dirksen CD, Utens CMA, Joore MA, van Barneveld TA, Boer B, Dreesens DHH, van Laarhoven H, Smit C, Stiggelbout AM, van der Weijden T: Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions: are we up for it? Protocol of the Patient-VIP Study. Implement Sci 2013, 8:64.
13. Brooker AS, Carcone S, Witteman W, Krahn M: Quantitative patient preference evidence for health technology assessment: a case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013, 29:290-300.
14. MacLean S, Mulla S, Akl EA, Jankowski M, Vandvik PO, Ebrahim S, McLeod S, Bhatnagar N, Guyatt GH: 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 2012, 141:e1S-e23S.
15. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA). Therapiehinweise gemäß § 92 Abs. 2 Satz 7 SGB V i. V. m. § 17 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 4-17 jaar; 2000.
17. Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS). Transparancy Committee opinion Humira 40 mg, solution for injection in pre-filled syringes (CIP 362 230-5); Humira® 40 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: Tocilizomab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A single technology appraisal. West Midlands: Health Technology Assessment Collaboration; 2009.
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 mg/mL concentrate for infusion (RoActemra®) SMC No. (754/12); 2012.
21. College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ). Pemetrexed (Alimta®) bij eerstelijnsbehandeling NSCLC; 2009.
22. Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS). Transparancy Committee opinion Alimta® 100 mg, powder for concentrate solution for infusions (CIP 383-080-2) Pack of 1; Alimta® 500 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-smallcell lung cancer; 2010.
24. Scottish Medical Consortium (SMC). Pemexetred 100 mg, 500 mg, powder for concentrate solution for infusion (Alimta®) 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 reumatoïde artritis. Nederlandse Vereniging voor Reumatologie, Alphen aan de Rijn; 2009.
27. Scheider M, Lelgeman M, Abholz HH, Blumenroth M, Flügge C, Gerken M, Jäniche H, Kunz K, Krüger K, Mau W, Specker C, Zellner M: Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie Management der frühen rheumatoiden Arthritis. 2011.
28. The National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions: Rheumatoid arthritis: national clinical guideline for management and treatment in adults. London: The National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions; 2009.
29. Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS). Recommandations professionnelles-Polyarthrite rhumatoïde, Prise en charge en phase; 2007.
30. Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland. Prostaatcarcinoom-Landelijke richtlijn, versie 1.0; 2007.
31. 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.
32. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Management of chronic heart failure-A national clinical guideline; 2007.
33. Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS): Guide for doctors: long-term conditions coronary artery disease; 2007.
34. Das Ärztliche Zentrum für Qualität in der Medizin (ÄZQ). S3-Guideline/ National Disease Management Guideline Unipolar Depression. 2012.
35. Mastenbroek CG, van der Meer FM, Zwaap J, Rikken F, Polman P: Pakketbeheer in de praktijk. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2006.
36. Staal PCL G: Beoordeling stand van de wetenschap en praktijk. Diemen: College Voor Zorgverzekeraars; 2007.
37. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2013.
38. Scottish Medical Consortium (SMC): Patient Interest Group-Submission Guidance and Template. Glasgow: Scottish Medical Consortium; 2012.
39. Bekkering GE, Kleijnen J: Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2008, 9(Suppl 1):5-29.
40. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Contributing to a technology appraisal-a guide for patient/carer groups. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2004.
41. Stafinski T, Menon D, Davis C, McCabe C: Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2011, 3:117-186.
42. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). SIGN 50 a guideline developers handbook; 2011.
43. Broerse J, van der Ham L, van Veen S, Pittens C, van Tulder M: Inventarisatie patientenparticipatie bij richtlijnontwikkeling. Amsterdam: Athena Instituut, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; 2010.
44. Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de gezondheidszorg CBO. Evidence-based richtlijn ontwikkeling handleiding voor werkgroepleden; 2007.
45. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): The guidelines manual. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2012.
46. Thomas V: Patient and carer involvement in NICE clinical guidelines. 2009.
47. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ: GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008, 336:924-926.
48. Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K, McCabe C, Sculpher M, Tsuchyia A: Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005, 4:201-208.
49. Coast J, Smith RD, Lorgelly P: Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: the spread of ideas in health economics. Soc Sci Med 2008, 67:1190-1198.
50. Umscheid CA: Should guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences? J Gen Intern Med 2009, 24(8):988-990.
51. Kelson M, Amis L: Patient and care involvement in health technology appraisal: what do patient organisations say? Montreal: HTAi workshop; 2008.