ArticleBMC public health2019
Public perspectives on disinvestments in drug funding: results from a Canadian deliberative public engagement event on cancer drugs.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Men's Preferences for Exiting Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Surveillance: A Deliberative Engagement Session Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Stakeholders' perspectives on disinvestment of low-value healthcare interventions and practices in Malaysia: an online survey.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Asking those who know their needs best: A framework for active engagement and involvement of childhood cancer survivors and parents in the process of psychosocial research-A workshop report.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- 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
- 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 · 2023Article
- Withdrawing or withholding treatments in health care rationing: an interview study on ethical views and implications.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.