Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32645035›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands.

Anna Nicolet, Antoinette D I van Asselt, Karin M Vermeulen, Paul F M Krabbe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna NicoletDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9125-1697
Antoinette D I van AsseltDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7705-9906
Karin M VermeulenDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Paul F M KrabbeDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn many countries, medical interventions are reimbursed on the basis of recommendations made by advisory boards and committees that apply multiple criteria in their assessment procedures. Given the diversity of these criteria, it is difficult to find common ground to determine what information is required for setting priorities.

objectiveTo investigate whether society and patients share the same interests and views concerning healthcare priorities.

methodsWe applied a framework of discrete choice models in which respondents were presented with judgmental tasks to elicit their preferences. They were asked to choose between two hypothetical scenarios of patients receiving a new treatment. The scenarios graphically presented treatment outcomes and patient characteristics. Responses were collected through an online survey administered among respondents from the general population (N = 1,253) and patients (N = 1,389) and were analyzed using conditional logit and mixed logit models.

resultsThe respondents' preferences regarding new medical treatments revealed that they attached the most relative importance to additional survival years, age at treatment, initial health condition, and the cause of disease. Minor differences in the relative importance assigned to three criteria: age at treatment, initial health, and cause of disease were found between the general population and patient samples. Health scenarios in which patients had higher initial health-related quality of life (i.e., a lower burden of disease) were favored over those in which patients' initial health-related quality of life was lower.

conclusionsOverall, respondents within the general population expressed preferences that were similar to those of the patients. Therefore, priority-setting studies that are based on the perspectives of the general population may be useful for informing decisions on reimbursement and other types of priority-setting processes in health care. Incorporating the preferences of the general population may simultaneously increase public acceptance of these decisions.

Indexed as

Public OpinionAdolescentAdultAttitude to HealthDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth Care RationingHealth PrioritiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPatient Acceptance of Health CareQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32645035
PMCPMC7347112
OpenAlexW3041782397

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.