ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
A Delphi Study to Identify Priority Indicators for Formulary Selection of Innovative Anticancer Drugs in China.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a multi-stakeholder, consensus-based decision support framework for prioritizing innovative anticancer drugs in Chinese hospital formularies, balancing clinical benefit, patient access, and financial sustainability.
methodsA two-round Delphi survey was conducted with a multidisciplinary expert panel (n = 62 in Round 1; n = 51 in Round 2, 82.3% retention rate) comprising clinicians, pharmacists, health administrators, and patient representatives. The initial set of 19 indicators across 9 dimensions, derived from a literature review, was iteratively refined based on panel feedback. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% of respondents rating an indicator as 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale, dispersion was summarized by interquartile range (IQR).
resultsThe panel reached a clear consensus on a structured framework comprising seven key dimensions and 16 measurable indicators. The top three prioritized dimensions were clinical benefits, safety, and economic impact. The framework incorporates policy-sensitive indicators relevant to China's healthcare system, such as pharmaceutical access and access barriers of genetic testing. Five indicators from the initial list were discarded, and two new ones were added based on expert input, with specific metrics refined for enhanced objectivity and practicality (e.g., "patient out-of-pocket expenditure per year").
conclusionThis study presents a transparent, standardized, and actionable decision-making framework to support formulary selection of innovative anticancer drugs in Chinese hospitals-particularly in resource-adequate settings. By incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives and establishing clear evaluation criteria, the framework reduces subjectivity and supports consistent value assessment. It provides practical guidance for hospital pharmacy and therapeutics committees and contributes to more equitable, evidence-informed, and financially sustainable drug policy development in China. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient representatives participated in the first-round expert panel, where they rated candidate indicators, shared their lived experiences, and provided feedback on the interview guides and questionnaires.
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.