ArticleHealthcare policy = Politiques de sante2020
An Exploratory Analysis of Predictors of Concordance between Canadian Common Drug Review Reimbursement Recommendations and the Subsequent Decisions by Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.
Article in Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergency contraception subsidy in Canada: a comparative policy analysis.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Kicking Off the 2020s with Healthcare Policy.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcordance between Common Drug Review (CDR) recommendations and provincial plans has been studied previously. However, no study has, to the best of the authors' knowledge, examined the characteristics of CDR recommendations that may be associated with concordance.
methodsRecommendation-decision pairs were collected from the CDR and the provincial plans of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. Concordance was evaluated by province. Characteristics of each CDR recommendation were collected, and associations with concordance were evaluated by logistic regression.
resultsRecommendation-listing concordance was high. Positive references to cost and clinical outcomes compared to placebo were statistically associated with concordance. Negative references to cost and to the consistency and certainty of economic evidence were statistically associated with discordance. However, these findings were inconsistent across the jurisdictions studied.
conclusionAlthough concordance was high, the ability of recommendation characteristics to explain the relationship between province and CDR listing decisions was limited. This exploratory study highlights the complexity of the reimbursement process and possible reasons for drug listing differences across jurisdictions.
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.