Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31331312›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Public perspectives on disinvestments in drug funding: results from a Canadian deliberative public engagement event on cancer drugs.

Sarah Costa, Colene Bentley, Dean A Regier, Helen McTaggart-Cowan, Craig Mitton, Michael M Burgess, Stuart J Peacock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Withdrawing versus Withholding Treatments in Medical Reimbursement Decisions: A Study on Public Attitudes.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2023
    Article
  6. Integration of real-world evidence from different data sources in health technology assessment.Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sarah CostaCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, 675 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British, Columbia, V5Z 1L3, Canada. scosta@bccrc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8166-4797
Colene BentleyCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, 675 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British, Columbia, V5Z 1L3, Canada.
Dean A RegierCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, 675 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British, Columbia, V5Z 1L3, Canada.
Helen McTaggart-CowanCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, 675 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British, Columbia, V5Z 1L3, Canada.
Craig MittonSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Michael M BurgessW. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, School of Population and Public Health, Southern Medical Program, University of British Columbia, 239 RHS, 1088 Discovery Avenue, Kelowna, British Columbia, V1V 1V7, Canada.
Stuart J PeacockCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, 675 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British, Columbia, V5Z 1L3, Canada.

Funding

Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control -Canadian Institutes of Health Research FRN-114107Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research -
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecisions relating to the funding of new drugs are becoming increasingly challenging due to a combination of aging populations, rapidly increasing list prices, and greater numbers of drug-indication pairs being brought to market. This is especially true in cancer, where rapid list price inflation is coupled with steeply rising numbers of incident cancer cases. Within a publicly funded health care system, there is increasing recognition that resource allocation decisions should consider the reassessment of, and potential disinvestment from, currently funded interventions alongside new investments. Public input into the decision-making process can help legitimize the outcomes and ensure priority-setting processes are aligned with public priorities.

methodsIn September 2014, a public deliberation event was held in Vancouver, Canada, to obtain public input on the topic of cancer drug funding. Twenty-four members of the general public were tasked with making collective recommendations for policy-makers about the principles that should guide funding decisions for cancer drugs in the province of British Columbia. Deliberative questions and decision aids were used to elicit individuals' willingness to make trade-offs between expenditures and health outcomes.

resultsParticipants discussed the implications of disinvestment decisions from cancer drugs in terms of its impact on patient choice, fairness and quality of life. Their discussions indicate that in order for a decision to disinvest from currently-funded cancer drugs to be acceptable, it must align with three main principles: the decision must be accompanied by significant gains, described both in terms of cost savings and opportunities to re-invest elsewhere in the health care system; those who are currently prescribed a cancer drug should be allowed to continue their course of treatment (referred to as a continuance clause, or "grandfathering" approach); and it must consider how access to care for specialized populations is impacted.

conclusionsThe results from this deliberation event provide insight into what is acceptable to British Columbians with respect to disinvestment decisions for cancer drugs. These recommendations can be considered within wider health system decision-making frameworks for funding decisions relating to all drugs, as well as for cancer drugs.

Indexed as

Financing, GovernmentPublic OpinionAdolescentAdultAgedAntineoplastic AgentsBritish ColumbiaCommunity ParticipationDecision MakingFemaleHealth Care RationingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPolicy MakingYoung AdultAntineoplastic AgentsCancer drug fundingDisinvestmentPriority settingPublic engagement

Identifiers

PMID31331312
PMCPMC6647147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.