ArticleJournal of oncology practice2008
6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs.
Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Pooled it
- Priority-setting for hospital funding of high-cost innovative drugs and therapeutics: A qualitative institutional case study.PloS one · 2024Article
- The reimbursement for expensive medicines: stakeholder perspectives on the SMA medicine nusinersen and the Dutch Coverage Lock policy.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Organizational aspect in healthcare decision-making: a literature review.Journal of market access & health policy · 2020Review
- Impact of a novel prioritization framework on clinician-led oncology drug submissions.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2019Article
- Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 10: operationalising disinvestment in a conceptual framework for resource allocation.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 6: investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2012Article
- Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2012Article
- Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2010Article
- Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications.BMC health services research · 2008Review
- Can quality-adjusted life year avoidance help in oncology drug reimbursement decisions?Journal of oncology practice · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo design a tool to assist clinician participation with cancer drug funding decisions. Public policy-makers and insurers are struggling with funding decisions regarding increasingly expensive new cancer drugs. Increasingly, oncologists are contributing to the process of review that leads to such decisions. We were asked to design a system for ranking new cancer drugs for priority-based funding decisions.
methodsThe "Accountability for Reasonableness" framework informed the design of a six-module multistakeholder decision process blending evidence-based traditional technology assessment methods with individual and cultural values elicitation. The tool was piloted in three settings: (1) videotaped simulated multistakeholder deliberation sessions; (2) clinical oncology leaders; and (3) a regional (Canadian provincial) pharmacy and therapeutics committee making formulary decisions. The modules involve: decision clarification, drug eligibility screening (filtering), clinical performance scoring index, cost modeling, data integration and values clarification, and process evaluation.
resultsThe tool was feasible to use, acceptable to participants, and able to rank candidate drugs. The pharmacy and therapeutics committee with whom it was tested used the tool as a part of their deliberations, and the tumor group leaders requested its incorporation into organization-based decision making.
conclusionThe decision tool can facilitate priority-based cancer drug funding decisions that meet the conditions of fairness as perceived by participants, including oncologists.
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.