Literature DB >> 10160089

The role of public opinion in drug resource allocation decisions.

C A Melfi1, B G Drake, W M Tierney.   

Abstract

Drug resource allocation decisions have a very real and direct impact on the public, due to cost and availability constraints resulting from these decisions. This presents an opportunity for public opinion to play an important role in influencing decisions that have far-reaching effects. Public opinion regarding pharmaceutical issues is influenced by drug companies, special interest groups, researchers and others. Since these groups often have conflicting goals, they may send contradictory messages to the public. In this article, we examine the issues of who comprises the public, how public opinion is influenced and what impact public opinion does and should have on drug resource allocation decisions. We emphasise that, for appropriate resource allocation decisions to be made, there is a continuing need to conduct high quality outcomes research and to continue the trend of increasing interest in how drugs are used rather than how much is sold or how much they cost. There is also a major role for pharmacoeconomic research to play in this issue, with a real need to make such research accessible and understandable by the public, including patients, physicians, pharmacists and policy makers, so that policy decisions can be based on such research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 10160089     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199609020-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  12 in total

1.  A strategy for promoting improved pharmaceutical use: the International Network for Rational Use of Drugs.

Authors:  D Ross-Degnan; R Laing; J Quick; H M Ali; D Ofori-Adjei; L Salako; B Santoso
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  Medicaid formularies: a critical review of the literature.

Authors:  R Jang
Journal:  J Pharm Mark Manage       Date:  1988

3.  Pharmaceutical regulation in the European Community: barriers to single market integration.

Authors:  L H Orzack; K I Kaitin; L Lasagna
Journal:  J Health Polit Policy Law       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.265

4.  British public opinion on National Health Service reform.

Authors:  R J Blendon; K Donelan
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  The role of pharmacoeconomic guidelines for formulary approval: the Australian experience.

Authors:  P C Langley
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.393

6.  Evaluating drugs after their approval for clinical use.

Authors:  W A Ray; M R Griffin; J Avorn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Integration of economic appraisal and health care policy in a health insurance system; the Dutch case.

Authors:  F Rutten; J W van der Linden
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  Global budgeting in Germany: lessons for the United States.

Authors:  K D Henke; M A Murray; C Ade
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 6.301

9.  Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines. Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team.

Authors:  R F Nease; T Kneeland; G T O'Connor; W Sumner; C Lumpkins; L Shaw; D Pryor; H C Sox
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-04-19       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  Physicians in health care management: 8. The patient-physician partnership: decision making, problem solving and the desire to participate.

Authors:  R B Deber
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1994-08-15       Impact factor: 8.262

View more
  2 in total

1.  Public views on priority setting for high cost medications in public hospitals in Australia.

Authors:  Gisselle Gallego; Susan J Taylor; Paul McNeill; Jo-anne E Brien
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Israeli lay persons' views on priority-setting criteria for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Perla Werner
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2009-03-23       Impact factor: 3.377

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.