Patients' perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review. Issue 1 (December 2016)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Patients' perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review. Issue 1 (December 2016)
- Main Title:
- Patients' perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review
- Authors:
- Berglas, Sarah
Jutai, Lauren
MacKean, Gail
Weeks, Laura - Abstract:
- Plain language summary In Canada, the CADTH Common Drug Review helps ensure that scarce health care resources are used to fund the most effective drugs. Clinicians, researchers, payers, and patients all have important, but potentially different, ideas on what should be considered, to determine a drug's value. Since 2010, CADTH has invited patient groups to contribute their perspectives to the Common Drug Review. We explored whether, and how, insights offered by patient groups are integrated into assessment reports and Recommendations by the CADTH Canadian Drug Expert Committee. After examining 30 completed drug assessments, we found that:Patient insights are used by CADTH reviewers to frame an assessment and are used by the expert committee to interpret the evidence. Drug trials do not always measure outcomes that patients consider important. Survival, symptom relief, the process of recovery, and maintaining health are all important aspects to consider when determining value during health technology assessments. Abstract Background Since 2010, Canadian patient groups have contributed to the CADTH Common Drug Review (CDR). CADTH conducts health technology assessments of new drugs to support publicly funded drug plans' reimbursement decisions. We explored whether, and how, patient insights were integrated into assessment reports and Recommendations by the CADTH Canadian Drug Expert Committee (CDEC). Methods We descriptively analyzed 30 consecutive assessments. One researcherPlain language summary In Canada, the CADTH Common Drug Review helps ensure that scarce health care resources are used to fund the most effective drugs. Clinicians, researchers, payers, and patients all have important, but potentially different, ideas on what should be considered, to determine a drug's value. Since 2010, CADTH has invited patient groups to contribute their perspectives to the Common Drug Review. We explored whether, and how, insights offered by patient groups are integrated into assessment reports and Recommendations by the CADTH Canadian Drug Expert Committee. After examining 30 completed drug assessments, we found that:Patient insights are used by CADTH reviewers to frame an assessment and are used by the expert committee to interpret the evidence. Drug trials do not always measure outcomes that patients consider important. Survival, symptom relief, the process of recovery, and maintaining health are all important aspects to consider when determining value during health technology assessments. Abstract Background Since 2010, Canadian patient groups have contributed to the CADTH Common Drug Review (CDR). CADTH conducts health technology assessments of new drugs to support publicly funded drug plans' reimbursement decisions. We explored whether, and how, patient insights were integrated into assessment reports and Recommendations by the CADTH Canadian Drug Expert Committee (CDEC). Methods We descriptively analyzed 30 consecutive assessments. One researcher identified a set of issues, insights, and desired treatment outcomes provided by patient groups for each included drug assessment. We tracked the presence of each identified patient insight in the relevant assessment protocol, in clinical trials as reported in the assessment, and in the CDEC Recommendations. Additionally, patient insights were categorized by topic and grouped into a three-tier framework to explore the observed juxtaposition between immediate treatment outcomes as seen in clinical trials and the insights from patients living with a chronic condition. Results In 30 drug assessments, 119 patient insights were identified. Of these insights, 89 were included in assessment protocols; 61 in reported clinical trial data; and 67 insights were reflected upon within the CDEC Recommendations. Patient insights within the first framework tier (health status achieved) were frequently included in all aspects of CDR assessments. Within the second tier (progress of recovery), although two-thirds of patient insights were included in protocols, only one-third was reflected in reported trial data or in CDEC Recommendations. Insights within the third tier, which address the long-term consequences of illness and treatment, were even less frequently addressed in all aspects of CDR assessments. Conclusions Patients' perspectives need not be "considered" in isolation. Patient insights are used by CADTH reviewers to frame an assessment and used by CDEC to interpret the evidence. As health technology assessments should address the indirect and unintended consequences of a technology, as well as its direct and intended effects, drug assessments should consider the progress of recovery and sustainability of health, in addition to survival and immediate health achieved. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Research involvement and engagement. Volume 2:Issue 1(2016)
- Journal:
- Research involvement and engagement
- Issue:
- Volume 2:Issue 1(2016)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 2, Issue 1 (2016)
- Year:
- 2016
- Volume:
- 2
- Issue:
- 1
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2016-0002-0001-0000
- Page Start:
- 1
- Page End:
- 13
- Publication Date:
- 2016-12
- Subjects:
- Patient engagement -- Health technology assessment -- Evaluation -- CADTH -- Common Drug Review
Medicine -- Research -- Methodology -- Periodicals
Medical care -- Research -- Methodology -- Periodicals
Patient participation -- Periodicals
Patient advocacy -- Periodicals
Research -- Moral and ethical aspects -- Periodicals
610.724 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.researchinvolvement.com/ ↗
http://link.springer.com/ ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1186/s40900-016-0036-9 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 2056-7529
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 10034.xml