Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37876714›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Considering patient perspectives in economic evaluations of health interventions.

Rui Fu, Vivian Ng, Michael Liu, David Wells, Emre Yurga, Eric Nauenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Rui FuDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Vivian NgRoche Diagnostics, Laval, QC, Canada.
Michael LiuHarvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States.
David WellsThe Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Nanaimo, BC, Canada.
Emre YurgaInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Eric NauenbergInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current guidelines for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of health interventions commonly recommend the use of a payer and/or a societal perspective. This raises the concern that the resulting reimbursement decision may overlook the full spectrum of impacts and equity considerations. In this paper, we argue that a potential solution is to supplement a societal- or payer-perspective economic evaluation with an additional evaluation accounting for exclusively the patient perspective. We present five categories of health interventions for which a patient-perspective analysis may be informative including those (1) that cross the definitional boundary between drugs and non-drug technologies; (2) affect patient adherence to protocol; (3) represent revolutionary treatments for genetic disorders; (4) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio involving slightly less effective, but substantially less costly, than the current standard; and (5) have been previously approved for funding but now being targeted for potential delisting or disinvestment. Real-world examples are discussed in detail. Lived experience individuals were invited to provide vignettes. Discussions are provided regarding how to incorporate patient inputs to improve patient-centered decision-making.

Indexed as

PatientsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumanscost-effectiveness analysiseconomic evaluationshealth economicspatient-centered carepatient preference

Identifiers

PMID37876714
PMCPMC10593459

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.