ArticleBMC health services research2007
The effect of priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs on medical oncologists' practice in Ontario: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of drug pricing drivers under South Korea's pharmaco-economic evaluation exemption policy (2015-2022).Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Current Attitudes toward Unfunded Cancer Therapies among Canadian Medical Oncologists.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Moral Distress and Resilience Associated with Cancer Care Priority Setting in a Resource-Limited Context.The oncologist · 2021Article
- Navigating Ethical Practices in the Era of High Cost Hematology.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2020Review
- Rationing cancer treatment: a qualitative study of perceptions of legitimate limit-setting.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Attitude of Iranian Medical Oncologists Toward Economic Aspects, and Policy-making in Relation to New Cancer Drugs.International journal of health policy and management · 2015Article
- Overcoming obstacles in accessing unfunded oral chemotherapy: physician experience and challenges.Journal of oncology practice · 2013Article
- Less than ideal: how oncologists practice with limited drug access.Journal of oncology practice · 2012Article
- In a survey, marked inconsistency in how oncologists judged value of high-cost cancer drugs in relation to gains in survival.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2012Article
- Variation and consternation: access to unfunded cancer drugs in Canada.Journal of oncology practice · 2012Article
- Access to cancer drugs in Canada: looking beyond coverage decisions.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2011Article
- Evaluating priority setting success in healthcare: a pilot study.BMC health services research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth care policies, including drug-funding policies, influence physician practice. Funding policies are especially important in the area of cancer care since cancer is a leading cause of death that is responsible for a significant level of health care expenditures. Recognizing the rising cost of cancer therapies, Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) established a funding process to provide access to new, effective agents through a "New Drug Funding Program" (NDFP). The purpose of this study is to describe oncologists' perceptions of the impact of NDFP priority setting decisions on their practice.
methodsThis is a qualitative study involving semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 46 medical oncologists in Ontario. Oncologists were asked to describe the impact of CCO's NDFP drug funding decisions on their practice. Analysis of interview transcripts commenced with data collection.
resultsOur key finding is that many of the medical oncologists who participated in this study did not accept limits when policy decisions limit access to cancer drugs they feel would benefit their patients. Moreover, overcoming those limits had a significant impact on oncologists' practice in terms of how they spend their time and energy and their relationship with patients.
conclusionWhen priority setting decisions limit access to cancer medications, many oncologists' efforts to overcome those limits have a significant impact on their practice. Policy makers need to seriously consider the implications of their decisions on physicians, who may go to considerable effort to circumvent their policies in the name of patient advocacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.