Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
An overview of critical decision-points in the medical product lifecycle: Where to include patient preference information in the decision-making process?
Whichello, Chiara; Bywall, Karin Schölin; Mauer, Jonathan; Stephen, Watt; Cleemput, Irina; Pinto, Cathy Anne; van Overbeeke, Eline; Huys, Isabelle; de Bekker-Grob, Esther W; Hermann, Richard; Veldwijk, Jorien.
Afiliação
  • Whichello C; Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: whichello@eshpm.eur.nl.
  • Bywall KS; Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, Husargatan 3, Box 564, 75237 Uppsala, Sweden. Electronic address: Karin.bywall@crb.uu.se.
  • Mauer J; Pfizer, Inc., 500 Arcola Road, 19426 Collegeville, PA, USA. Electronic address: jonathan.mauer@pfizer.com.
  • Stephen W; Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42ndStreet, 10017 New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: stephen.watt@pfizer.com.
  • Cleemput I; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Doorbuilding (10th floor), Kruidtuinlaan 55, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: Irina.cleemput@kce.fgov.be.
  • Pinto CA; Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Electronic address: cathy.pinto@merck.com.
  • van Overbeeke E; Clincial Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 - Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: eline.vanoverbeeke@kuleuven.be.
  • Huys I; Clincial Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 - Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: Isabelle.huys@kuleuven.be.
  • de Bekker-Grob EW; Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Debekker-grob@eshpm.eur.nl.
  • Hermann R; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P, One MedImmune Way, 20878 Gaithersburg, MD, USA. Electronic address: Richard.hermann@astrazeneca.com.
  • Veldwijk J; Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: veldwijk@eshpm.eur.nl.
Health Policy ; 124(12): 1325-1332, 2020 Dec.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32839011
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Patient preference (PP) information is not effectively integrated in decision-making throughout the medical product lifecycle (MPLC), despite having the potential to improve patients' healthcare options. A first step requires an understanding of existing processes and decision-points to know how to incorporate PP information in order to improve patient-centric decision-making.

OBJECTIVES:

The aims were to 1) identify the decision-making processes and decision-points throughout the MPLC for industry, regulatory authorities, and reimbursement/HTA, and 2) determine which decision-points can potentially include PP information.

METHODS:

A scoping literature review was conducted using five scientific databases. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from seven European countries and the US, including industry (n = 24), regulatory authorities (n = 23), reimbursement/HTA (n = 23). Finally, validation meetings with key stakeholders (n = 11) were conducted.

RESULTS:

Six critical decision-points were identified for industry decision-making, three for regulatory decision-making, and six for reimbursement/HTA decision-making. Stakeholder groups agreed that PP information is not systematically integrated, either as obligatory information or pre-set criteria, but would benefit all the listed decision-points in the future.

CONCLUSION:

Currently, PP information is not considered as obligatory information to submit for any of the MPLC decision-points. However, PP information is considered an important component by most stakeholders to inform future decision-making across the MPLC. The integration of PP information into 15 identified decision-points needs continued discussion and collaboration between stakeholders.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica / Preferência do Paciente Tipo de estudo: Health_technology_assessment / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Health Policy Assunto da revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE / SAUDE PUBLICA Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica / Preferência do Paciente Tipo de estudo: Health_technology_assessment / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Health Policy Assunto da revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE / SAUDE PUBLICA Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article