ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2015
Attitude of Iranian Medical Oncologists Toward Economic Aspects, and Policy-making in Relation to New Cancer Drugs.
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia.PloS one · 2017Article
- Economic burden of colorectal cancer in Iran in 2012.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough medical oncologists can have an important role in controlling the cost of cancer treatment, there is little information about their attitudes toward the cost of cancer treatment and the impact of cost on their treatment recommendations, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we assessed the attitude of Iranian medical oncologists toward some economic aspects of new cancer drugs.
methodsWe translated a questionnaire that was used in similar studies in the United States and Canada into Persian and modified it according to the local setting in Iran. The face and content validity of the questionnaire were assessed by oncologists before being used in the survey. We distributed the questionnaire and collected the data from 80 oncologists who participated in the 13th Annual Congress of the Iranian Society of Medical Oncology and Hematology (ISMOH).
resultsFifty-two oncologists participated in our study (a response rate of 65%). The majority of oncologists stated that drug costs and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs influence their treatment recommendations (92% and 94%, respectively). Most oncologists (70%) felt that they are ready enough to use cost-effectiveness information in their treatment decisions, and 74% believed that patients should only have access to cancer treatments that are cost-effective. Most oncologists agree that the government should have control over drug prices, and more use of cost-effectiveness data is required for decision-making about cancer drug coverage. Ninety-one percent of oncologists said that they always or frequently discuss cancer treatment costs with their patients. Oncologists believed that academic groups (research centers and scientific societies) (81%) and the Ministry of Health (MoH) (43%) are the most eligible groups for determining whether a drug provides good value.
conclusionIranian medical oncologists are ready to participate in the health technology assessment and priority-setting process. This situation creates a unique opportunity for the government to rely on scientific societies and find an appropriate solution for the improvement of patients' access to high-quality care.
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.