罕见病和孤儿药健康技术评估中的社会偏好:新分析方法的系统文献综述》。

IF 1.4 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Value in health regional issues Pub Date : 2024-07-25 DOI:10.1016/j.vhri.2024.101026
Paola Vásquez MPH , Lisa Hall PhD , Gregory Merlo PhD
{"title":"罕见病和孤儿药健康技术评估中的社会偏好:新分析方法的系统文献综述》。","authors":"Paola Vásquez MPH ,&nbsp;Lisa Hall PhD ,&nbsp;Gregory Merlo PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.vhri.2024.101026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This systematic literature review aimed to explore experiences worldwide of societal preferences integration into health technology assessments (HTAs) for rare diseases (RDs) and orphan drugs (ODs) through the implementation of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), discrete choice experiments (DCEs), and person trade-off (PTO) methods, among others.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic search of the literature was conducted in April 2021 using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach was used for the review phases. Finally, the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework was used to discuss the implementation of these instruments in the RD context.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 33 articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies measured societal preferences for RD and OD as part of HTA using MCDA (n = 17), DCE (n = 8), and PTO (n = 4), among other methods (n = 4). These found that patients and clinicians do not prioritize funding based on rarity. The public is willing to allocate funds only if the OD demonstrates effectiveness and improves the quality of life, considering as relevant factors disease severity, unmet health needs, and quality of life. Conversely, HTA agency experts preferred their current approach, placing more weight on cost-effectiveness and evidence quality, even though they expressed concern about the fairness of the drug review process.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>MCDA, PTO, and DCE are helpful and transparent methods for assessing societal preferences in HTA for RD and OD. However, their methodological limitations, such as arbitrary criteria selection, subjective scoring methods, framing effects, weighting adaptation, and value measurement models, could make implementation challenging.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23497,"journal":{"name":"Value in health regional issues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212109924000591/pdfft?md5=d36df0f011b66bacf9f5fbef4f2c4c67&pid=1-s2.0-S2212109924000591-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Societal Preferences in Health Technology Assessments for Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review of New Analytic Approaches\",\"authors\":\"Paola Vásquez MPH ,&nbsp;Lisa Hall PhD ,&nbsp;Gregory Merlo PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.vhri.2024.101026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This systematic literature review aimed to explore experiences worldwide of societal preferences integration into health technology assessments (HTAs) for rare diseases (RDs) and orphan drugs (ODs) through the implementation of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), discrete choice experiments (DCEs), and person trade-off (PTO) methods, among others.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic search of the literature was conducted in April 2021 using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach was used for the review phases. Finally, the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework was used to discuss the implementation of these instruments in the RD context.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 33 articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies measured societal preferences for RD and OD as part of HTA using MCDA (n = 17), DCE (n = 8), and PTO (n = 4), among other methods (n = 4). These found that patients and clinicians do not prioritize funding based on rarity. The public is willing to allocate funds only if the OD demonstrates effectiveness and improves the quality of life, considering as relevant factors disease severity, unmet health needs, and quality of life. Conversely, HTA agency experts preferred their current approach, placing more weight on cost-effectiveness and evidence quality, even though they expressed concern about the fairness of the drug review process.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>MCDA, PTO, and DCE are helpful and transparent methods for assessing societal preferences in HTA for RD and OD. However, their methodological limitations, such as arbitrary criteria selection, subjective scoring methods, framing effects, weighting adaptation, and value measurement models, could make implementation challenging.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23497,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in health regional issues\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212109924000591/pdfft?md5=d36df0f011b66bacf9f5fbef4f2c4c67&pid=1-s2.0-S2212109924000591-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in health regional issues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212109924000591\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in health regional issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212109924000591","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本系统性文献综述旨在探讨世界各地通过实施多标准决策分析 (MCDA)、离散选择实验 (DCE) 和人员权衡 (PTO) 等方法将社会偏好纳入罕见病 (RD) 和孤儿药 (OD) 卫生技术评估 (HTA) 的经验:2021 年 4 月,使用 PubMed、Cochrane、Embase 和 Scopus 数据库对文献进行了系统检索。审查阶段采用了 "系统审查和元分析首选报告项目 "方法。最后,还采用了 "促进健康服务研究实施行动 "框架来讨论这些工具在研究与发展中的实施情况:共有 33 篇文章符合纳入标准。这些研究使用 MCDA(17 篇)、DCE(8 篇)和 PTO(4 篇)以及其他方法(4 篇)测量了社会对作为 HTA 一部分的 RD 和 OD 的偏好。这些研究发现,患者和临床医生不会根据稀有性来确定资金的优先次序。只有当 OD 证明有效并能改善生活质量时,公众才愿意拨款,并将疾病严重程度、未满足的健康需求和生活质量作为相关因素加以考虑。与此相反,HTA 机构的专家更倾向于他们目前的方法,更看重成本效益和证据质量,尽管他们对药物审查过程的公平性表示担忧:MCDA、PTO 和 DCE 是在 RD 和 OD 的 HTA 中评估社会偏好的有用且透明的方法。然而,它们在方法上的局限性,如任意选择标准、主观评分方法、框架效应、权重调整和价值衡量模型,可能会使实施工作面临挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Societal Preferences in Health Technology Assessments for Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review of New Analytic Approaches

Objectives

This systematic literature review aimed to explore experiences worldwide of societal preferences integration into health technology assessments (HTAs) for rare diseases (RDs) and orphan drugs (ODs) through the implementation of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), discrete choice experiments (DCEs), and person trade-off (PTO) methods, among others.

Methods

A systematic search of the literature was conducted in April 2021 using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach was used for the review phases. Finally, the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework was used to discuss the implementation of these instruments in the RD context.

Results

A total of 33 articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies measured societal preferences for RD and OD as part of HTA using MCDA (n = 17), DCE (n = 8), and PTO (n = 4), among other methods (n = 4). These found that patients and clinicians do not prioritize funding based on rarity. The public is willing to allocate funds only if the OD demonstrates effectiveness and improves the quality of life, considering as relevant factors disease severity, unmet health needs, and quality of life. Conversely, HTA agency experts preferred their current approach, placing more weight on cost-effectiveness and evidence quality, even though they expressed concern about the fairness of the drug review process.

Conclusions

MCDA, PTO, and DCE are helpful and transparent methods for assessing societal preferences in HTA for RD and OD. However, their methodological limitations, such as arbitrary criteria selection, subjective scoring methods, framing effects, weighting adaptation, and value measurement models, could make implementation challenging.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in health regional issues
Value in health regional issues Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
期刊最新文献
Understanding What Matters: Stakeholder Views on Decision Criteria for Cancer Drug Selection in the Public Sector in Malaysia. Postpartum Screening for Type 2 Diabetes in Women With a History of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Singapore Cost-Utility Analysis of Dose-Dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin Chemotherapy Regimen in Comparison With Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Chemotherapy Regimen in the Treatment of Patients With Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer in Iran. Editorial Board Table of Contents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1