ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2026
Societal Preferences for Assessment Pathways of Rare Disease Drugs: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in Applied health economics 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCountries have implemented different assessment pathways for public funding of drugs for rare diseases, resulting in inequities in access. Understanding public preferences for these processes could enhance decision-making legitimacy and acceptance.
objectiveWe aimed to elicit societal preferences for different assessment pathways that lead to public reimbursement to drugs for rare diseases.
methodsA discrete choice experiment was conducted among adults from the general population in Australia who were asked to assume the role of a government advisor and chose between two different assessment pathways. Attributes describing the assessment pathways were identified through a literature review and expert focus groups. Each respondent completed eight choice tasks. Data were analysed using conditional logit, mixed logit and latent class models. Willingness to wait was calculated as the ratio of attribute coefficients to access time.
resultsThere were 1099 respondents who completed the survey. Overall, respondents preferred assessment pathways that incorporated comprehensive evidence and stakeholder input. The mixed logit model revealed preference heterogeneity across four of the five attributes, with the latent class analysis identifying three groups: Class 1 (28.1%) preferred use of all available evidence, Class 3 (20.2%) opposed long wait times, and Class 2 (52%) showed no strong preferences. On average, respondents were willing to wait 32 additional months to incorporate all types of evidence into the decision-making process, and an additional 14 months for broad stakeholder involvement. Acceptable delays indicate the value placed on greater certainty and broader consultation rather than recommended policy waiting times.
conclusionsThis study examined societal preferences for assessment pathways for rare disease medicines. Robust evidence, covering safety, clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness, and enhanced stakeholder involvement were the most influential factors. Respondents were also willing to delay patient access to ensure decisions were supported by strong evidence.
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.