Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 19, 2019 - Issue 1
Submit an article Journal homepage
151
Views
4
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

Drug attributes associated with the selection of drugs for reimbursement: a pilot stated preferences experiment with Canadian stakeholders

Wiesława Dominika WranikSchool of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;College of Economics Analysis, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warszawa, PolandCorrespondence[email protected]
ORCID Iconhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7318-3886View further author information
ORCID Icon,
Christopher SkedgelNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United KingdomORCID Iconhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-4989-8846View further author information
ORCID Icon &
Min HuDepartment of Economics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, CanadaORCID Iconhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-2812View further author information
ORCID Icon
Pages 59-69 | Received 14 Jun 2018, Accepted 28 Aug 2018, Published online: 13 Sep 2018

References

  • Barnieh L, Manns B, Harris A, et al. A synthesis of drug reimbursement decision-making processes in organization for economic co-operation and development countries. Value in Health. 2014;17:98–108.
  • Harris A, Hill SH, Chin G, et al. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994–2004. Med Decis Making. 2008 Sep/Oct;713–722.
  • Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, et al. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. Health Econ. 2015;24:1256–1271.
  • Svensson M, Nilsson FOL, Arnberg K. Reimbursement decision for pharmaceuticals in Sweden: the impact of disease severity and cost effectiveness. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:1229–1236.
  • Charokopou M, Majer IM, de Raad J, et al. Which factors enhance positive drug reimbursement recommendation in Scotland? A retrospective analysis 2006–2013. Value in Health. 2015;18:284–291.
  • World Health Organization. Medical devices. Health technology assessment. [accessed June 5 2018]. Available from: http://www.who.int/medical_devices/assessment/en
  • Wranik D, Gambold L, Hanson N, et al. The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: can centralization improve the use of economic evaluations? Int J Health Plann Manag. 2017;32:e232–e260.
  • pCODR. [citedaccessed Jun 6 2018]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pCODR%27s%20Drug%20Review%20Process/pcodr_perc_deliberative_frame.pdf
  • Skedgel C, Wranik WD, Hu M. The relative importance of clinical, economic, patient values and feasibility criteria in cancer drug reimbursement in Canada: a revealed preferences analysis of recommendations of the pan Canadian oncology drug review 2011–2017. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(4):467–475.
  • Linley WG, Hughes DA. Decision-makers’ preferences for approving new medicines in Wales: a discrete-choice experiment with assessment of external validity. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:345–355.
  • Tappenden P, Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, et al. A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(8):685–693.
  • Koopmanshap MA, Stolk EA, Koolman X. Dear policy maker: have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment amonth policy makers and other health professionals. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(2):192–204.
  • Potoglou D, Burge P, Flynn T, et al. Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:1717–1727.
  • Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value in Health. 2011;14:403–413.
  • Gu Y, Lancsar E, Ghijben P, et al. Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: a systematic review of what counts and to what extent. Soc Sci Med. 2015;146:41–52.
  • Johnson RF, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value in Health. 2013;16:3–13.
  • Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–677.
  • MacLeod TE, Harris AH, Mahal A. Stated and revealed preferences for funding new high-cost cancer drugs: a critical review of the evidence from patients, the public and payers. The Patient ; 2015. 9(3):201-222. Doi:10.1007/s40271-015-0139-7.
  • Lanscar E, Louviere J, Donaldson C, et al. Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: methods and an application. Soc Sci Med. 2013;76:74–82.
  • Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26:171–189.
  • Jakubczyk M, Kamiński B. Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment. Ann Operations Res. 2017;251(1–2):301–324.
  • ObjectPlanet Inc. Opinio survey software: version 1. Ovre Stollsgate 5, 0157 Oslo, Norway. 2018.
  • Dummett M. The Borda count and agenda manipulation. Soc Choice Welfare. 1998;15(2):289–296.
  • Madani K, Read L, Shalikarian L. Voting under uncertainty: a stochastic framework for analyzing group decision making problems. Water Resources Management. 2014;28(7):1839.
  • Klamler C. The Dodgson ranking and the Borda count: a binary comparison. Math Soc Sci. 2004;48:103–108.
  • Laffond, G., Laslier F., Le Breton M., Condorcet choice correspondences: a set-theoretical comparison. Math Soc Sci. 1995;30:23–35.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.