Cecile M A Utens1, Carmen D Dirksen2, Trudy van der Weijden3, Manuela A Joore2. 1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands; CAPHRI, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: cecileutens@gmail.com. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands; CAPHRI, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of General Practice, CAPHRI, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Despite the increasing number of research publications on patient preferences, their use in healthcare policy-making is limited. Integrating research evidence on patient preferences in policy-making is advocated by some, but several issues are put forward as well. There has been no systematic investigation of the stakeholders' view on this matter so far. Objective is to explore the opinions of Dutch stakeholders on how to integrate evidence on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline (CPG) development, and which issues may be encountered. METHODS: Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews with Dutch researchers (N=7), policy-makers and CPG developers (N=4) and patient representatives (N=4) involved in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and/or CPG development. The interview scheme focused on the definition of patient preferences; how to integrate evidence on patient preferences in decision-making; and barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Respondents mentioned various barriers and facilitators for integration, of conceptual, normative, procedural, methodological and practical nature. There is also variety in the terms and definitions used for preferences, complicating searching and synthesising evidence. It is not clear how to integrate evidence on patient preferences in different decision contexts, and what weight preferences should have in relation to other decision criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed important issues that need guidance when integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions.
UNLABELLED: Despite the increasing number of research publications on patient preferences, their use in healthcare policy-making is limited. Integrating research evidence on patient preferences in policy-making is advocated by some, but several issues are put forward as well. There has been no systematic investigation of the stakeholders' view on this matter so far. Objective is to explore the opinions of Dutch stakeholders on how to integrate evidence on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline (CPG) development, and which issues may be encountered. METHODS: Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews with Dutch researchers (N=7), policy-makers and CPG developers (N=4) and patient representatives (N=4) involved in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and/or CPG development. The interview scheme focused on the definition of patient preferences; how to integrate evidence on patient preferences in decision-making; and barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Respondents mentioned various barriers and facilitators for integration, of conceptual, normative, procedural, methodological and practical nature. There is also variety in the terms and definitions used for preferences, complicating searching and synthesising evidence. It is not clear how to integrate evidence on patient preferences in different decision contexts, and what weight preferences should have in relation to other decision criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed important issues that need guidance when integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions.
Authors: Catharina M van Leersum; Ben van Steenkiste; Albine Moser; Judith R L M Wolf; Trudy van der Weijden Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Jayden Blackwood; Melissa J Armstrong; Corinna Schaefer; Ian D Graham; Loes Knaapen; Sharon E Straus; Robin Urquhart; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-05-24 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: S N Morin; M Djekic-Ivankovic; L Funnell; L Giangregorio; I B Rodrigues; R Ridout; S Feldman; S Kim; H McDonald-Blumer; G Kline; W E Ward; N Santesso; W D Leslie Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-12-14 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Rosanne Janssens; Eline van Overbeeke; Lotte Verswijvel; Lissa Meeusen; Carolien Coenegrachts; Kim Pauwels; Marc Dooms; Hilde Stevens; Steven Simoens; Isabelle Huys Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2018-10-11
Authors: Rafael Santos Santana; Evandro de Oliveira Lupatini; Fernando Zanghelini; Ricardo de March Ronsoni; Norberto Rech; Silvana Nair Leite Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 3.240