ArticleBMC health services research2013
Politics and its intersection with coverage with evidence development: a qualitative analysis from expert interviews.
Article in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Formulating an Ethics of Pharmaceutical Disinvestment.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020Article
- Views of European Drug Development Stakeholders on Treatment Optimization and Its Potential for Use in Decision-Making.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Risk-Sharing Agreements in the EU: A Systematic Review of Major Trends.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2018Review
- The Australian Managed Entry Scheme: Are We Getting it Right?PharmacoEconomics · 2018Review
- A real world example of coverage with evidence development in Australia - ipilimumab for the treatment of metastatic melanoma.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2018Article
- Drug approval status and recommendations for listing on public formularies: a Canadian cohort analysis.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Living laboratory: whole-genome sequencing as a learning healthcare enterprise.Clinical genetics · 2015Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPressures on health care budgets have led policy makers to discuss how to balance the provision of costly technologies to populations in need and making coverage decisions under uncertainty. Coverage with evidence development (CED) is being employed to meet these challenges.
methodsTwenty-four interviews were carried out between June 2009 and December 2010 with researchers, decision makers and policy makers from Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United States. Three phases of coding occurred, the first being manual coding where the interviews were read and notes were taken and nodes were extracted and imputed. NVIVO coding was applied to the interview transcripts, with both broad general searches for word usages and imputed nodes.
resultsFour overarching thematic areas emerged out of contextual analysis of the interviews - (1) what constitutes CED; (2) the lack of a systematic approach/governance structure; (3) the role of the pharmaceutical industry and overt political considerations in CED; and (4) alternatives and barriers to CED. We explore these themes and then use concrete examples of CED projects in each of the four countries to illustrate the political issues that our interviewees raised.
conclusionUntil the underlying political nature of CED is recognized then fundamental questions about its usefulness and operation will remain unresolved.
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.