ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment
Impact of Ministerial Decree 77/2022 from different stakeholders' perspectives: clinicians, pharmacists, patients, and industry.
Article in Global & regional health technology assessment. 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
Introduction: Assess the implications of Ministerial Decree (MD) 77/2022 in Italy, which decentralizes healthcare through proximity-based models, from the perspective of key actors involved, and discuss its relevance to sustainability and value assessment. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with four stakeholder groups: pharmaceutical companies, scientific societies, Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) experts, and patient advocacy organizations (N = 162). Structured questionnaires examined awareness/knowledge, perceived implementation, perceived impact, operational feasibility, and policy alignment. Results: Over 60% of respondents recognized the strategic value of proximity care. Key barriers included administrative burden (47%), resource constraints (38%), and lack of Key Performance Indicator (KPI)-based frameworks (55%). Treatments in oncology, geriatrics, and metabolic diseases were considered most suitable for decentralized provision. Divergent perspectives emerged professional stakeholders emphasized methodological rigour and outcome monitoring, while patient organizations foregrounded equity of access, responsiveness, and patient-facing feasibility. Conclusion: MD 77/2022 opens a policy window to align decentralized care pathways with sustainability and value assessment. However, the survey did not collect empirical pricing, reimbursement, or cost-effectiveness data; therefore, any implications for pricing governance should be interpreted as conceptual and hypothesis-generating rather than as demonstrated effects. Heterogeneous implementation and fragmented outcome measurement remain the primary barriers; a minimum viable KPI set and routine data infrastructure are prerequisites for translating perceived value into decision-relevant 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.