Literature DB >> 28237210

The Value of Addressing Patient Preferences.

Jeff D Allen1, Mark D Stewart2, Samantha A Roberts2, Ellen V Sigal2.   

Abstract

Recent scientific progress is, in some cases, leading to transformative new medicines for diseases that previously had marginal or even no treatment options. This offers great promise for people affected by these diseases, but it has also placed stress on the health care system in terms of the growing cost associated with some new interventions. Effort has been taken to create tools to help patients and health care providers assess the value of new medical innovations. These tools may also provide the basis for assessing the price associated with new medical products. Given the growing expenditures in health care, value frameworks present an opportunity to evaluate new therapeutic options in the context of other treatments and potentially lead to a more economically sustainable health care system. In summary, the contribution to meaningful improvements in health outcomes is the primary focus of any assessment of the value of a new intervention. A component of such evaluations, however, should factor in timely access to new products that address an unmet medical need, as well as the magnitude of that beneficial impact. To achieve these goals, value assessment tools should allow for flexibility in clinical end points and trial designs, incorporate patient preferences, and continually evolve as new evidence, practice patterns, and medical progress advance.
Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  assessment; breakthrough therapies; cancer; value framework

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28237210     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  6 in total

1.  Increased survival time or better quality of life? Trade-off between benefits and adverse events in the systemic treatment of cancer.

Authors:  V Valentí; J Ramos; C Pérez; L Capdevila; I Ruiz; L Tikhomirova; M Sánchez; I Juez; M Llobera; E Sopena; J Rubió; R Salazar
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 3.405

2.  Stakeholder perspectives on addressing adverse events from adjuvant cancer therapy: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Syril D Pettit; Pamela Silberman; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Rebecca A Kirch; Steven E Lipshultz; Randall Teal; Ethan Basch
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Drug prescription goals in primary care: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Louis Bernard; René Ecochard; François Gueyffier; Laurent Letrilliart
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-01-02       Impact factor: 2.655

4.  Comparing the needs and preferences of patients with moderate and severe dry eye symptoms across four countries.

Authors:  Elisabeth Messmer; Colin Chan; Penny Asbell; Gary Johnson; Brigitte Sloesen; Nigel Cook
Journal:  BMJ Open Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-12-15

Review 5.  Do current approaches to assessing therapy related adverse events align with the needs of long-term cancer patients and survivors?

Authors:  Syril D Pettit; Rebecca Kirch
Journal:  Cardiooncology       Date:  2018-06-15

6.  Stakeholder-Engaged Derivation of Patient-Informed Value Elements.

Authors:  Susan dosReis; Beverly Butler; Juan Caicedo; Annie Kennedy; Yoon Duk Hong; Chengchen Zhang; Julia F Slejko
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 3.883

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.