ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2016
Perspectives of Japanese oncologists on the health economics of innovative cancer treatments.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Carbon-Ion Radiation Therapy and Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Cancer treatment-related financial toxicity in Japan: a scoping review.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness of carbon-ion radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer.Cancer science · 2022Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew reports have thus far discussed the influence of economic factors on treatment decision-making by patients. The objective of the present study was to clarify the awareness among oncologists of health economics in cancer treatment.
methodsThe present study was based on the questionnaire regarding health economics in cancer treatment carried out by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) in July 2013. The subjects were trustees registered with JSCO. The survey investigated the influence of medical expenses on patient access to and selection of medical treatment in order to clarify the primary attributes of the respondents and their awareness of economics. The study also investigated the maximum allowable public medical expenses to prolong the life expectancy of a cancer patient by 1 year and the factors that can influence treatment selection.
resultsThe 172 respondents had completed a mean of 30.3 ± 6.2 postgraduate years, and the mean number of patients they treated annually was 1323 ± 1963. The degree of treatment accessibility among patients was perceived positively by 112 (71.3 %) and negatively by 49 (28.7 %) of the respondents, irrespective of medical expenses. Of the 172 respondents, 66 (41.0 %) believed that the maximum allowable medical expenses for cancer treatment should be ≤4 million yen/LY, with 62 (39.8 %) reporting a value of 4.01-8 million yen/LY.
conclusionThe findings of this study suggest that a certain range of medical expenses has come to be regarded as the standard range of medical expenses for cancer treatment among oncologists, with answers based on the premise that patients should have access to effective medical treatment.
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.