ArticlePharmacoEconomics2016
Use of Value of Information in Healthcare Decision Making: Exploring Multiple Perspectives.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating the Potential Benefits of Confirmatory Trials for Drugs with Accelerated Approval: A Comprehensive Value of Information Framework.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Trial
- Integrating Findings Into Practice: Assessing External Validity of Congestive Heart Failure Trials.Cardiology research · 2026Article
- The Role of Pharmacies in Providing Point-of-Care Services in the Era of Digital Health and Artificial Intelligence: An Updated Review of Technologies, Regulation and Socioeconomic Considerations.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Stakeholders' experiences with a clinician-led access programme linking evidence generation and reimbursement for precision cancer treatments: the drug access protocol in the Netherlands.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- A novel policy dialogue to build sustainable and resilient health systems: findings from PHSSR Portugal.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Article
- Value of Information Analysis: Are We There Yet?PharmacoEconomics - open · 2021Article
- Developing a whole-school mental health and wellbeing intervention through pragmatic formative process evaluation: a case-study of innovative local practice within The School Health Research network.BMC public health · 2021Article
- How can we adapt complex population health interventions for new contexts? Progressing debates and research priorities.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2021Article
- Integrating value of research into NCI Clinical Trials Cooperative Group research review and prioritization: A pilot study.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
- The Australian Managed Entry Scheme: Are We Getting it Right?PharmacoEconomics · 2018Review
- Value of information analysis of an early intervention for subthreshold panic disorder: Healthcare versus societal perspective.PloS one · 2018Article
- The INVEST project: investigating the use of evidence synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical trials.Trials · 2017Article
- Dutch guidelines for economic evaluation: 'from good to better' in theory but further away from pharmaceuticals in practice?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundValue of information (VOI) is a tool that can be used to inform decisions concerning additional research in healthcare. VOI estimates the value of obtaining additional information and indicates the optimal design for additional research. Although it is recognized as good practice in handling uncertainty, it is still hardly used in decision making in the Netherlands.
objectiveThis paper aims to examine the potential value of VOI, barriers and facilitators and the way forward with the use of VOI in the decision-making process for reimbursement of pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands.
methodsThree focus group interviews were conducted with researchers, policy makers, and representatives of pharmaceutical companies.
resultsThe results revealed that although all stakeholders recognize the relevance of VOI, it is hardly used and many barriers to the performance and use of VOI were identified. One of these barriers is that not all uncertainties are easily incorporated in VOI, and the results may be biased if structural uncertainties are ignored. Furthermore, not all research designs indicated by VOI may be feasible in practice.
conclusionsTo fully embed VOI into current decision-making processes, a threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and guidelines that clarify when and how VOI should be performed are needed. In addition, it should be clear to all stakeholders how the results of VOI are used in decision making.
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.