Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31585538›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review.

Rosanne Janssens, Isabelle Huys, Eline van Overbeeke, Chiara Whichello, Sarah Harding, Jürgen Kübler, Juhaeri Juhaeri, Antonio Ciaglia, Steven Simoens, Hilde Stevens and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

15 authors.

Rosanne JanssensDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. rosanne.janssens@kuleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0003-1982-4176
Isabelle HuysDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Eline van OverbeekeDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Chiara WhichelloErasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sarah HardingTakeda International, UK Branch, 61 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4AE, UK.
Jürgen KüblerQSciCon, Europabadstr. 8, 35041, Marburg, Germany.
Juhaeri JuhaeriSanofi, 55 Corporate Drive, Bridgewater Township, NJ, 08807, USA.
Antonio CiagliaInternational Alliance of Patients' Organizations, 49-51 East Rd, Hoxton, London, N1 6AH, UK.
Steven SimoensDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Hilde StevensInstitute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Route de Lennik 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium.
Meredith SmithAmgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
Bennett LevitanGlobal R&D Epidemiology, Janssen Research & Development, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, PO Box 200, Titusville, NJ, 08560, USA.
Irina CleemputBelgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Kruidtuinlaan 55, 1000, Brussels, Belgium.
Esther de Bekker-GrobErasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jorien VeldwijkErasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making.

methodsA systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international).

resultsFrom 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients' valuations of treatment outcomes, patients' benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies.

conclusionsDespite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed.

Indexed as

Equipment and SuppliesPatient PreferenceDecision MakingHumansReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalDecision-makingDrug developmentDrug evaluationDrug life cycleHealth technology assessmentMarketing authorizationPatient preferencesReimbursementStakeholders

Identifiers

PMID31585538
PMCPMC6778383

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.