Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32676997›Full record

ArticleThe patient2020

Outcome-Based Payment Schemes: What Outcomes Do Patients with Cancer Value?

Paula Lorgelly, Jack Pollard, Patricia Cubi-Molla, Amanda Cole, Duncan Sim, Jon Sussex

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Paula LorgellyDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. p.lorgelly@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8990-9514
Jack PollardUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Patricia Cubi-MollaOffice of Health Economics, London, UK.
Amanda ColeOffice of Health Economics, London, UK.
Duncan SimCancer Research UK, London, UK.
Jon SussexRAND Europe, Cambridge, UK.
Office Of Health Economics · GBCancer Research Horizons · GBRAND Europe · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUncertainty about the benefits new cancer medicines will deliver in clinical practice risks delaying patient access to new treatment options in countries such as England, where the cost effectiveness of new medicines affects reimbursement decisions. Outcome-based payment (OBP) schemes, whereby the price paid for the drug is linked to patients' real-world treatment outcome(s) has been put forward as a mechanism to accelerate access. Although OBP schemes have generally focused on clinical outcomes to determine reimbursement, the degree to which these represent the outcomes that are important to patients is unclear.

objectiveTo advance the application of OBP we ask, what outcomes do patients with cancer value (most) that might form a practical basis for OBP?

methodsA review of the literature on outcomes in cancer produced a long list of candidates. These were evaluated in a focus group with patients with cancer and were then, in a second focus group, distilled to a shortlist of ten outcomes using a card sort method. The ten outcomes were included in an online survey of patients with cancer and carers, who were asked to rank the importance of each outcome.

resultsThe focus groups identified a range of both clinical and functional outcomes that are important to patients. Analyses of the 164 survey responses suggested that the four most important outcomes to patients and carers are survival; progression, relapse or recurrence; post-treatment side effects; and return to normal activities of daily life.

conclusionCommissioners of cancer services wishing to instigate an OBP scheme should prioritise collecting data on these outcomes as they are important to patients. Of these, only mortality data are routinely collected within the national health service (NHS). Progression and some morbidity data exist but are not currently linked, creating a challenge for OBP.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceReimbursement MechanismsAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsQualitative ResearchState MedicineTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32676997
PMCPMC7478942
OpenAlexW3042704166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.