Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41032082›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026

Priority-Setting and Values: A Qualitative Study of the Danish Medicines Council.

Anna Christine Dorf, Andreas Albertsen, Lasse Nielsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Anna Christine DorfPolitical Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Andreas AlbertsenPolitical Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. aba@ps.au.dk.ORCID 0000-0001-7528-2493
Lasse NielsenPhilosophy, Department of Design, Media and Educational Science, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3093-4448

Funding

Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond 9037-00007BDanmarks Grundforskningsfond DNRF144
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As priority setting committees become commonplace in contemporary welfare states, it becomes increasingly important to understand how they operate. This article contributes to our understanding of contemporary priority setting by examining how the Danish Medicines Council (DMC) makes and justifies its decisions, as well as the role of different (and perhaps conflicting) concerns and values in these decisions. We conducted seventeen interviews with DMC members and observed three DMC meetings spanning five days. Firstly, we find that health-related effect is the most crucial factor in DMC members' recommendations of newly proposed medicines and that discussions of effects take precedence over other considerations in council deliberations. Secondly, we find that the ability of DMC members to adequately assess the effect of newly proposed medicines is often significantly limited by poor data quality and a lack of sufficient documentation, which shifts the DMC's task from making recommendations on an informed basis to providing estimated assessments of the expected effect. In these circumstances of uncertainty about effect, recommendations are influenced by considerations such as the age of patients and the rarity of the disease. This raises significant moral issues in which the DMC has no particular expertise.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesDecision MakingHealth PrioritiesDenmarkHumansQualitative ResearchBioethicsCost-effectivenessDiscriminationHealthPrioriity-settingPriority setting

Identifiers

PMID41032082
PMCPMC13388422

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.