ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019
Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Pooled it
- Views and opinions of the general public about the reimbursement of expensive medicines in the Netherlands.PloS one · 2025Article
- Exploring the anticancer mechanism of cardiac glycosides using proteome integral solubility alteration approach.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Citizens' views on prices of medicines reimbursed by the National Health Service: Findings from Italian online focus groups.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Priority-setting for hospital funding of high-cost innovative drugs and therapeutics: A qualitative institutional case study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
- Access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth: Eliciting citizens' values to inform public funding decisions.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Health and healthcare equity within the Canadian cancer care sector: a rapid scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Article
- Determinants of the Cancer Drug Funding Process in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Preparing newborn screening for the future: a collaborative stakeholder engagement exploring challenges and opportunities to modernizing the newborn screening system.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
- Four normative perspectives on public health policy-making and their preferences for bodies of evidence.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Real-World Evidence in Oncology: Opportunities and Limitations.The oncologist · 2020Article
- 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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth system expenditure on cancer drugs is rising rapidly in many OECD countries given the costly new treatments and increased rates of use due to a growing and ageing population. These factors put considerable strain on the sustainability of health systems worldwide, sparking public debate among clinicians, pharmaceutical companies, policy-makers and citizens on issues of affordability and equity. We engaged Canadians through a series of deliberative public engagement events to determine their priorities for making cancer drug funding decisions fair and sustainable in Canada's publicly financed health system.
methodsAn approach to deliberation was developed based on the McMaster Health Forum's citizen panels and the established Burgess and O'Doherty model of deliberative public engagement. Six deliberations were held across Canada in 2016. Transcripts were coded in NVivo and analysed to determine where participants' views converged and diverged. Recommendations were grouped thematically.
resultsA total of 115 Canadians participated in the deliberative events and developed 86 recommendations. Recommendations included the review and regular re-review of approved drugs using 'real-world' evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; prioritisation of treatments that restore patients' independence, mental health and general well-being; ensuring that decision processes, results and their rationales are transparent; and commitment to people with similar needs receiving the same care regardless of where in Canada they live.
conclusionsThe next steps for policy-makers should be to develop mechanisms for (1) re-reviewing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data for all cancer drugs; (2) making disinvestments in cancer drugs that satisfy requirements relating to grandfathering and compassionate access; (3) ensuring fair and equitable access to cancer drugs for all Canadians; and (4) fostering a pan-Canadian approach to cancer drug funding decisions.
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.