IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v120y2016i1p120-128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to integrate research evidence on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guidelines: A qualitative study among Dutch stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Utens, Cecile M.A.
  • Dirksen, Carmen D.
  • van der Weijden, Trudy
  • Joore, Manuela A.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Utens, Cecile M.A. & Dirksen, Carmen D. & van der Weijden, Trudy & Joore, Manuela A., 2016. "How to integrate research evidence on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guidelines: A qualitative study among Dutch stakeholders," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 120-128.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:120:y:2016:i:1:p:120-128
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.10.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851015002560
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.10.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Afschin Gandjour, 2010. "Theoretical Foundation of Patient v. Population Preferences in Calculating QALYs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(4), pages 57-63, July.
    2. Harder, Thomas & Abu Sin, Muna & Bosch-Capblanch, Xavier & Bruno Coignard, & de Carvalho Gomes, Helena & Duclos, Phillippe & Eckmanns, Tim & Elder, Randy & Ellis, Simon & Forland, Frode & Garner, Paul, 2015. "Towards a framework for evaluating and grading evidence in public health," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(6), pages 732-736.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bram de Boer & Yvette Buist & Simone R. de Bruin & Ramona Backhaus & Hilde Verbeek, 2021. "Working at Green Care Farms and Other Innovative Small-Scale Long-Term Dementia Care Facilities Requires Different Competencies of Care Staff," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-11, October.
    2. Afschin Gandjour, 2018. "Patient preferences: a Trojan horse for evidence-based medicine?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 167-172, January.
    3. Rafael Santos Santana & Evandro de Oliveira Lupatini & Fernando Zanghelini & Ricardo de March Ronsoni & Norberto Rech & Silvana Nair Leite, 2018. "The different clinical guideline standards in Brazil: High cost treatment diseases versus poverty-related diseases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Charles Christian Adarkwah & Amirhossein Sadoghi & Afschin Gandjour, 2016. "Should Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis Include the Cost of Consumption Activities? AN Empirical Investigation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 249-256, February.
    4. Ogorevc, Marko & Murovec, Nika & Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos & Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, 2019. "Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 166-172.
    5. Afschin Gandjour, 2018. "Patient preferences: a Trojan horse for evidence-based medicine?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 167-172, January.
    6. Paul F M Krabbe & Ruslan Jabrayilov & Patrick Detzel & Livia Dainelli & Karin M Vermeulen & Antoinette D I van Asselt, 2020. "A two-step procedure to generate utilities for the Infant health-related Quality of life Instrument (IQI)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Anja Schwalm & You-Shan Feng & Jörn Moock & Thomas Kohlmann, 2015. "Differences in EQ-5D-3L health state valuations among patients with musculoskeletal diseases, health care professionals and healthy volunteers," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 865-877, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:120:y:2016:i:1:p:120-128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.