ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2019
Stakeholder opinions on value in healthcare.
Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The VBHC big picture: an umbrella review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for the Evaluation of Remote Patient Monitoring Interventions Using the Sextuple Aim: Modified Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- New Anticancer Drugs: Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine how the value of new medicines is defined from the perspective of different stakeholders in nine European countries.
methodsWe carried out an explorative survey by conducting in-depth qualitative interviews with a range of experts with health technology assessment, clinical provision, health economics, payer, academic and industry experience. Experts were asked to distribute 100 points over a predefined list of attributes related to value. In total, 30 interviews were conducted with seven academics, five clinicians, nine economists, five payers and four providers. Each of these categories was represented in responses from France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK.
resultsComments on the interview guide were all positive. There was substantial variation in definitions of value provided by respondents. Most respondents indicated that delivering benefits to the patient is a prerequisite for a healthcare product to be of value, but only half included costs or resource use in their definition. Quantitative responses showed that effectiveness and efficacy were considered the most important attributes of value, followed by safety and side effects. Lower scores were given to other attributes, such as dignity and individualism, and invasiveness of the treatment. Resources and costs associated with complications and readmissions were considered important by academics and economists, but not clinicians.
conclusionsThe interview findings indicate that the value of a drug is subjective in being perceived differently by different stakeholders, and for different treatment types. Future research will require evaluation of the views of a larger number of stakeholders in more and different countries to confirm these findings.
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.