ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025
Stakeholder survey about broad elements of value in health technology assessment in Australia: industry and academia more similar than different.
Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveResearchers propose wider individual and societal benefits (or broad elements of value) be included in economic evaluations (EEs) of medicines. This study investigates opinions of Australian stakeholders regarding the inclusion of broader value elements in reimbursement decisions for medicines for rare diseases in Australia.
methodStakeholders were invited via email to complete an online survey about their views on broader elements of value in HTA. Responses were summarised using descriptive statistics and compared using chi-square statistics.
resultsForty-four respondents (academia (n=11), private sector (n=33)) completed the survey between October 2023 and May 2024. Only 27% of stakeholders agree the current information about the sources of value considered in reimbursement decisions is sufficient. Stakeholders consistently agree labour productivity (>50%), adherence (>80%), reducing uncertainty due to a new diagnostic (>70%), disease severity (>71%), value to caregivers (>70%), and equity (>70%) should be considered in HTA. The majority (>70%) agreed managed entry agreements (MEA), risk share arrangements (RSA), and multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) be used in reimbursement decision making for medicines for rare diseases. Significantly fewer academic stakeholders (40%) versus private sector (77%), believe an increased willingness-to-pay threshold be applied to medicines for rare disease.
conclusionsAcademic and private sector stakeholders hold similar views when considering medicines for non-rare and rare diseases. Stakeholders favour considering more value elements in HTA than referred to in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) guidelines. This study highlights further advice is needed on the factors considered in reimbursement decisions and how that would influence guidelines.
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.