Irfan A Dhalla1, Sarah Garner, Kalipso Chalkidou, Peter Littlejohns. 1. Medicine and Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Keenan Research Centre of Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada. dhallai@smh.toronto.on.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The concept of using public funds to pay for healthcare interventions only when provided in the context of ongoing research is receiving increasing attention worldwide. Nevertheless, these decisions are often controversial and implementation can be problematic. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the views of United Kingdom stakeholders on the current arrangements for implementing "only in research" (OIR) decisions and to investigate how improvements might be made. METHODS: After an internal review of previous OIR decisions issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), deliberations by NICE's Citizens Council, and an international workshop convened by NICE and the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, thirteen key stakeholders and experts from academia, industry, government, and the National Health Service (NHS) were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide. Interview transcripts were subjected to a framework-based analysis using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. RESULTS: All interviewees endorsed the use of the OIR option. There was a high degree of consensus for several suggestions regarding how the use of the OIR option might be improved. For example, there was universal agreement that a formal process should be established to prioritize research needs arising from OIR decisions and that funds for publicly funded research projects should be channeled in a manner that would better motivate healthcare providers to participate in OIR-related research. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest several potential modifications of the OIR pathway in the United Kingdom and may also be helpful to health technology assessment agencies in other countries that already use or are considering using an OIR-like option to reduce the uncertainty inherent in health technology assessment.
BACKGROUND: The concept of using public funds to pay for healthcare interventions only when provided in the context of ongoing research is receiving increasing attention worldwide. Nevertheless, these decisions are often controversial and implementation can be problematic. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the views of United Kingdom stakeholders on the current arrangements for implementing "only in research" (OIR) decisions and to investigate how improvements might be made. METHODS: After an internal review of previous OIR decisions issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), deliberations by NICE's Citizens Council, and an international workshop convened by NICE and the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, thirteen key stakeholders and experts from academia, industry, government, and the National Health Service (NHS) were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide. Interview transcripts were subjected to a framework-based analysis using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. RESULTS: All interviewees endorsed the use of the OIR option. There was a high degree of consensus for several suggestions regarding how the use of the OIR option might be improved. For example, there was universal agreement that a formal process should be established to prioritize research needs arising from OIR decisions and that funds for publicly funded research projects should be channeled in a manner that would better motivate healthcare providers to participate in OIR-related research. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest several potential modifications of the OIR pathway in the United Kingdom and may also be helpful to health technology assessment agencies in other countries that already use or are considering using an OIR-like option to reduce the uncertainty inherent in health technology assessment.
Authors: Louise Longworth; Jihee Youn; Laura Bojke; Stephen Palmer; Susan Griffin; Eldon Spackman; Karl Claxton Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.981