ReviewFrontiers in public health2022
Societal preferences for funding orphan drugs in China: An application of the discrete choice experiment method.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2022. 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.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- What Drives Public Preference for Rare Drugs Coverage in China? Insights From a Multi-Center Discrete Choice Experiment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Community Hypertension Patients' Preferences for Family Doctor Service Packages in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Establishment of a value assessment framework for orphan drugs in China: an application of the discrete choice experiment in multicriteria decision analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To explore whether a societal preference for orphan drugs exists in Chinese general public and to quantitatively measure the personal trade-off between essential attributes of orphan drugs through a discrete choice experiment. Methods: A labeled discrete choice experiment was employed to measure public preference. Six attributes (impact of diseases on life-years, impact of diseases on quality of life, availability of alternative drug treatments, annual cost per patient paid by medical insurance, expected increases in life-expectancy, and improvements to the quality of life) were identified through a literature review, experts' suggestions, and stakeholders' semi-structured interviews, then refined through a pre-survey. The current study used a D-efficient design to yield 27 choice sets divided into three blocks with nine questions containing the labeled treatment (either orphan drugs or common drugs). Information on sociodemographic characteristics and individual preferences was collected through a web-based questionnaire using convenience sampling. A mixed logit model was used to test societal preferences for orphan drugs over common drugs, while a binary logit model was used to measure the relative importance of each attribute in orphan drug access for the National Reimbursement Drug List and its willingness to pay. Results: A total of 323 persons participated in this study. Respondents largely had indifferent attitudes toward orphan drugs and common drugs. The binary logit model results showed that 5 of the 6 attributes were significant, except for the availability of alternative drug treatments. The most impacted factor was the annual cost per patient paid by medical insurance (β = -1.734, Conclusion: The general public in China does not value rarity as a sufficient reason to justify special consideration in funding orphan drugs. When making orphan drug coverage decisions, the public prioritized the annual cost, disease severity, and drug effects.
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.