Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31706313›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

What do patients with unmet medical needs want? A qualitative study of patients' views and experiences with expanded access to unapproved, investigational treatments in the Netherlands.

Eline M Bunnik, Nikkie Aarts

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Metal Chelation Following Inappropriate Testing: Approach to Non-Medically Indicated Therapy Requests : Ethics in Practice.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Procedures for application of the extended dosing after antitumor drug clinical trials.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023
    Article
  7. Do Physicians Have a Duty to Discuss Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs with their Patients? A Normative Analysis.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. The economic impact of compassionate use of medicines.BMC health services research · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Global & regional health technology assessment
    Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eline M BunnikDepartment of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, 3015, CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. e.bunnik@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1481-6222
Nikkie AartsDepartment of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, 3015, CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with unmet medical needs sometimes resort to non-standard treatment options, including the use of unapproved, investigational drugs in the context of clinical trials, compassionate use or named-patient programs. The views and experiences of patients with unmet medical needs regarding unapproved, investigational drugs have not yet been examined empirically.

methodsIn this qualitative study, exploratory interviews and focus groups were held with patients with chronic or life-threatening diseases (n = 39), about topics related to non-standard treatment options, such as the search for non-standard treatment options, patients' views of the moral obligations of doctors, and the conditions under which they would or would not wish to use non-standard treatment options, including expanded access to unapproved, investigational drugs.

resultsRespondents had very little knowledge about and/or experience with existing opportunities for expanded access to investigational drugs, although some respondents were actively looking for non-standard treatment options. They had high expectations of their treating physicians, assuming them to be aware of non-standard treatment options, including clinical trials elsewhere and expanded access programs, and assuming that they would inform their patients about such options. Respondents carefully weighed the risks and potential benefits of pursuing expanded access, citing concerns related to the scientific evidence of the safety and efficacy of the drug, side effects, drug-drug interactions, and the maintaining of good quality of life. Respondents stressed the importance of education and assertiveness to obtain access to good-quality health care, and were willing to pay out of pocket for investigational drugs. Patients expressed concerns about equal access to new and/or non-standard treatment options.

conclusionWhen the end of a standard treatment trajectory comes into view, patients may prefer that treating physicians discuss non-standard treatment options with them, including opportunities for expanded access to unapproved, investigational drugs. Although our respondents had varying levels of understanding of expanded access programs, they seemed capable of making well-considered choices with regard to non-standard treatment options and had realistic expectations with regard to the safety and efficacy of such options. Dutch patients might be less likely to fall prey to false hope than often presumed.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCompassionate Use TrialsDrugs, InvestigationalFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth LiteracyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPatient SafetyPhysician's RoleQualitative ResearchRisk AssessmentDrugs, InvestigationalCompassionate useEthical issuesExpanded accessFocus groupsInterviewsInvestigational drugsPatients’ attitudesQualitative study

Identifiers

PMID31706313
PMCPMC6842468
OpenAlexW2988183339

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.