Literature DB >> 28237211

Value to Whom? The Patient Voice in the Value Discussion.

Eleanor M Perfetto1, Elisabeth M Oehrlein2, Marc Boutin3, Sarah Reid3, Eric Gascho3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Professional societies and other organizations have recently taken a visible role trying to define treatment value via value frameworks and assessments, providing payer or provider recommendations, and potentially impacting patient access. Patient perspectives routinely differ from those of other stakeholders. Yet, it is not always apparent that patients were engaged in value framework development or assessment.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and content of the National Health Council's (NHC's) Rubric, a tool that includes criteria for evaluation of value frameworks specifically with regard to patient-centeredness and meaningful patient engagement.
METHODS: The NHC held a multistakeholder, invitational roundtable in Washington, DC, in 2016. Participants reviewed existing patient-engagement rubrics, discussed experiences with value frameworks, debated and thematically grouped hallmark patient-centeredness characteristics, and developed illustrative examples of the characteristics. These materials were organized into the rubric, and subsequently vetted via multistakeholder peer review.
RESULTS: The resulting rubric describes six domains of patient-centered value frameworks: partnership, transparency, inclusiveness, diversity, outcomes, and data sources. Each domain includes specific examples illustrating how patient engagement and patient-centeredness can be operationalized in value framework processes.
CONCLUSIONS: The NHC multistakeholder roundtable's recommendations are captured in the NHC's Rubric to assess value framework and model patient-centeredness and patient engagement. The Rubric is a tool that will be refined over time on the basis of feedback from patient, patient group, framework developer, and other stakeholder-use experiences.
Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical decision making; decision making; patient outcome assessment; patient preference; patient-centered care

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28237211     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.014

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


  16 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.  What Matters Most for Treatment Decisions in Hepatitis C: Effectiveness, Costs, and Altruism.

Authors:  T Joseph Mattingly; Julia F Slejko; Eleanor M Perfetto; Shyamasundaran Kottilil; C Daniel Mullins
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Patient-Centered Core Impact Sets: What They are and Why We Need Them.

Authors:  Eleanor M Perfetto; Elisabeth M Oehrlein; T Rosie Love; Silke Schoch; Annie Kennedy; Jennifer Bright
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 3.481

4.  Value Insider Season 1 Episode 2: How to Measure Quality of Life and Utility? (QoL) [Podcast].

Authors:  Nancy J Devlin; Elisabeth Sophia Hartgers-Gubbels; Michael Chambers
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2022-10-12

Review 5.  Value-based medicine in oncology: the importance of perspective in the emerging value frameworks.

Authors:  Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 2.365

6.  The promise of Immuno-oncology: implications for defining the value of cancer treatment.

Authors:  Howard L Kaufman; Michael B Atkins; Prasun Subedi; James Wu; James Chambers; T Joseph Mattingly; Jonathan D Campbell; Jeff Allen; Andrea E Ferris; Richard L Schilsky; Daniel Danielson; J Leonard Lichtenfeld; Linda House; Wendy K D Selig
Journal:  J Immunother Cancer       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 13.751

7.  Co-creation of patient engagement quality guidance for medicines development: an international multistakeholder initiative.

Authors:  Katherine Deane; Laure Delbecque; Oleksandr Gorbenko; Anne Marie Hamoir; Anton Hoos; Begonya Nafria; Chi Pakarinen; Ify Sargeant; Dawn P Richards; Soren Eik Skovlund; Nicholas Brooke
Journal:  BMJ Innov       Date:  2019-03-02

Review 8.  Measuring upper limb function in MS: Which existing patient reported outcomes are fit for purpose?

Authors:  James Close; Kathryn Baines; Laurie Burke; Jeremy Hobart
Journal:  eNeurologicalSci       Date:  2020-03-16

9.  International palliative care research priorities: A systematic review.

Authors:  Felicity Hasson; Emma Nicholson; Deborah Muldrew; Olufikayo Bamidele; Sheila Payne; Sonja McIlfatrick
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 3.234

10.  Value in Hepatitis C Virus Treatment: A Patient-Centered Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  T Joseph Mattingly; Julia F Slejko; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Eleanor M Perfetto; Shyamasundaran Kottilil; C Daniel Mullins
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.