Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands.
Details

UNIL restricted access
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: Not specified
Serval ID
serval:BIB_5E77D0D0FF1C
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN
1932-6203 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1932-6203
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2020
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
15
Number
7
Pages
e0235666
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Publication Status: epublish
Publication Status: epublish
Abstract
In many countries, medical interventions are reimbursed on the basis of recommendations made by advisory boards and committees that apply multiple criteria in their assessment procedures. Given the diversity of these criteria, it is difficult to find common ground to determine what information is required for setting priorities.
To investigate whether society and patients share the same interests and views concerning healthcare priorities.
We applied a framework of discrete choice models in which respondents were presented with judgmental tasks to elicit their preferences. They were asked to choose between two hypothetical scenarios of patients receiving a new treatment. The scenarios graphically presented treatment outcomes and patient characteristics. Responses were collected through an online survey administered among respondents from the general population (N = 1,253) and patients (N = 1,389) and were analyzed using conditional logit and mixed logit models.
The respondents' preferences regarding new medical treatments revealed that they attached the most relative importance to additional survival years, age at treatment, initial health condition, and the cause of disease. Minor differences in the relative importance assigned to three criteria: age at treatment, initial health, and cause of disease were found between the general population and patient samples. Health scenarios in which patients had higher initial health-related quality of life (i.e., a lower burden of disease) were favored over those in which patients' initial health-related quality of life was lower.
Overall, respondents within the general population expressed preferences that were similar to those of the patients. Therefore, priority-setting studies that are based on the perspectives of the general population may be useful for informing decisions on reimbursement and other types of priority-setting processes in health care. Incorporating the preferences of the general population may simultaneously increase public acceptance of these decisions.
To investigate whether society and patients share the same interests and views concerning healthcare priorities.
We applied a framework of discrete choice models in which respondents were presented with judgmental tasks to elicit their preferences. They were asked to choose between two hypothetical scenarios of patients receiving a new treatment. The scenarios graphically presented treatment outcomes and patient characteristics. Responses were collected through an online survey administered among respondents from the general population (N = 1,253) and patients (N = 1,389) and were analyzed using conditional logit and mixed logit models.
The respondents' preferences regarding new medical treatments revealed that they attached the most relative importance to additional survival years, age at treatment, initial health condition, and the cause of disease. Minor differences in the relative importance assigned to three criteria: age at treatment, initial health, and cause of disease were found between the general population and patient samples. Health scenarios in which patients had higher initial health-related quality of life (i.e., a lower burden of disease) were favored over those in which patients' initial health-related quality of life was lower.
Overall, respondents within the general population expressed preferences that were similar to those of the patients. Therefore, priority-setting studies that are based on the perspectives of the general population may be useful for informing decisions on reimbursement and other types of priority-setting processes in health care. Incorporating the preferences of the general population may simultaneously increase public acceptance of these decisions.
Keywords
Adolescent, Adult, Attitude to Health, Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration, Female, Health Care Rationing/statistics & numerical data, Health Priorities/statistics & numerical data, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data, Public Opinion, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Young Adult
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
28/07/2020 13:59
Last modification date
09/08/2024 15:53