ArticlePharmacoEconomics2021
Evaluating New Zealanders' Values for Drug Coverage Decision Making: Trade-Offs between Treatments for Rare and Common Conditions.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Redefining value assessment and healthcare funding priorities for medicines: the journey to patient-centric decision making in APAC - a systematic literature review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Pooled it
- General public's understanding of rare diseases and their opinions on medical resource allocation in Japan: a cross-sectional study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Article
- Literature Review on Health Emigration in Rare Diseases-A Machine Learning Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Comparison of Rare and Common Diseases in the Setting of Healthcare Priorities: Evidence of Social Preferences Based on a Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNew Zealand's near static healthcare budget limits access to expensive medications including those for rare conditions. As such, it is necessary to know the public's priority for values in the drug funding decision-making process.
objectivesThe objectives of this study were to measure the relative societal importance of values of New Zealanders in informing drug funding decisions and to determine how New Zealanders trade off funding in various scenarios between common and rare diseases.
methodsAn online survey was conducted between 17 April and 17 May, 2019 on a sample of 500 New Zealanders aged ≥ 18 years. Participants ranked 13 values using an analytical hierarchy process. Participants were then presented with different trade-off scenarios to measure their attitudes towards funding drugs for common and rare diseases.
resultsThe values ranked in the top five by most were potential effect on quality of life (71.8%), ability of the drug to work (57.6%), severity (57.6%), safety (57%), and potential to extend life (56%). Adherence and rarity held the lowest and second lowest ranking. Most believe that resources should be allocated towards drugs that have been proven to work and have the greatest health benefits. In trade-offs between access to an expensive drug therapy for a rare disease with uncertain benefits or receive a fixed cash payment, the overwhelming consensus was to receive the cash payment.
conclusionsNew Zealanders ultimately value drug-related factors (e.g. quality of life and efficacy) and disease-related factors (e.g. severity of disease and equity) the most but did not value disease rarity.
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.