ArticleIsrael journal of health policy research2013
Oncologists' and family physicians' views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care.
Article in Israel journal of health policy research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The insurability of innovative pharmaceutical cancer technologies.Israel journal of health policy research · 2020Article
- Perceptions of Oncologists, Healthcare Policy Makers, Patients and the General Population on the Value of Pharmaceutical Treatments in Oncology.Advances in therapy · 2016Article
- Oncology healthcare providers' knowledge, attitudes, and practice behaviors regarding LGBT health.Patient education and counseling · 2016Article
- The IJHPR celebrates five years of quality publication.Israel journal of health policy research · 2016Article
- Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population.Patient preference and adherence · 2016Article
- 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
- Does cancer deserve special treatment when health technologies are prioritized?Israel journal of health policy research · 2013Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies suggest that cancer-related interventions are valued by policy makers more favorably than interventions for other medical conditions, but the views of practicing physicians have not yet been assessed in Israel. Attitudes and judgments of practicing physicians may assist decision-makers in their deliberations on coverage of new technologies. We conducted a national survey in Israel among oncologists and family physicians to explore their views on access to care, coverage decisions and treatment recommendations for cancer and congestive heart failure (CHF) patients.
methodsWe administered a web-based survey to 300 family physicians and 156 oncologists. The questionnaire included 24 statements and physicians were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Where relevant, physicians were asked to express their views on interventions for cancer and CHF respectively.
resultsResponse rates were 39% for family physicians and 36% for oncologists. Participants expressed similar views on cancer and CHF care and no significant differences were found between the two medical specialties. More than 85% of physicians believe that inclusion of a treatment in the National List of Health Services (NLHS) strongly affects their patients' access to care. Approximately 80% suggest that more use of comparative-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis is needed in coverage decisions. The vast majority of respondents (75%) suggest that assessment of value-for-money should be made by an independent (academic) institution or the national committee responsible for recommending coverage decisions, Seventy percent believe that treatments not included in the NLHS should be included in supplementary health insurance programs and only a small minority of respondents (<30%) believe that cancer-related interventions should receive higher priority than non-cancer interventions in coverage decisions.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that both oncologists and family physicians value cancer and CHF interventions equally. We could not find evidence for a "cancer premium" as implied from previous surveys and analysis of coverage decisions in various countries.
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.