IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i5p555-566.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Marketing Authorization Procedures for Advanced Cancer Drugs: Exploring the Views of Patients, Oncologists, Healthcare Decision Makers, and Citizens in France

Author

Listed:
  • Christel Protiére
  • Rachel Baker
  • Dominique Genre
  • Anthony Goncalves
  • Patrice Viens

Abstract

Background. The past decades have seen advances in cancer treatments in terms of toxicity and side effects but progress in the treatment of advanced cancer has been modest. New drugs have emerged improving progression free survival but with little impact on overall survival, raising questions about the criteria on which to base decisions to grant marketing authorizations and about the authorization procedure itself. For decisions to be fair, transparent and accountable, it is necessary to consider the views of those with relevant expertise and experience. Methods. We conducted a Q-study to explore the views of a range of stakeholders in France, involving: 54 patients (18 months after diagnosis); 50 members of the general population; 27 oncologists; 19 healthcare decision makers; and 2 individuals from the pharmaceutical industry. Results. Three viewpoints emerged, focussing on different dimensions entitled: 1) ‘Quality of life (QoL), opportunity cost and participative democracy’; 2)‘QoL and patient-centeredness’; and 3) ‘Length of life’. Respondents from all groups were associated with each viewpoint, except for healthcare decision makers, who were only associated with the first one. Conclusion. Our results highlight plurality in the views of stakeholders, emphasize the need for transparency in decision making processes, and illustrate the importance of a re-evaluation of treatments for all 3 viewpoints. In the context of advanced cancer, our results suggest that QoL should be more prominent amongst authorization criteria, as it is a concern for 2 of the 3 viewpoints.

Suggested Citation

  • Christel Protiére & Rachel Baker & Dominique Genre & Anthony Goncalves & Patrice Viens, 2017. "Marketing Authorization Procedures for Advanced Cancer Drugs: Exploring the Views of Patients, Oncologists, Healthcare Decision Makers, and Citizens in France," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(5), pages 555-566, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:5:p:555-566
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17691953
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17691953
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17691953?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aldrich, Sarah & Eccleston, Chris, 2000. "Making sense of everyday pain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(11), pages 1631-1641, June.
    2. Baker, Rachel Mairi, 2006. "Economic rationality and health and lifestyle choices for people with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(9), pages 2341-2353, November.
    3. Exel, Job van & Graaf, Gjalt de & Brouwer, Werner, 2007. "Care for a break? An investigation of informal caregivers' attitudes toward respite care using Q-methodology," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 332-342, October.
    4. Stenner, Paul H. D. & Cooper, Deborah & Skevington, Suzanne M., 2003. "Putting the Q into quality of life; the identification of subjective constructions of health-related quality of life using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(11), pages 2161-2172, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. N. Exel & G. Graaf & P. Rietveld, 2011. "“I can do perfectly well without a car!”," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 383-407, May.
    2. van Exel, Job & de Graaf, Gjalt & Brouwer, Werner, 2008. "Give me a break!: Informal caregiver attitudes towards respite care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 73-87, October.
    3. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    4. Rachel Baker & John Wildman & Helen Mason & Cam Donaldson, 2014. "Q‐Ing For Health—A New Approach To Eliciting The Public'S Views On Health Care Resource Allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 283-297, March.
    5. Hempel, Corinna & Will, Sabine & Zander, Katrin, 2018. "Societal Perspectives on a Bio-Economy in Germany: An Explorative Study Using Q Methodology," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276871, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    6. Dan Cai & Teresa E. Stone & Marcia A. Petrini & Margaret McMillan, 2016. "‘An exploration of the health beliefs of Chinese nurses' and nurse academics' health beliefs: A Q‐methodology study’," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 97-104, March.
    7. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    8. Ming Lu & Alin Lin & Jiyi Sun, 2018. "The Impact of Photovoltaic Applications on Urban Landscapes Based on Visual Q Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.
    9. Factor, Roni & Kawachi, Ichiro & Williams, David R., 2011. "Understanding high-risk behavior among non-dominant minorities: A social resistance framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(9), pages 1292-1301.
    10. Wonjae Jeon & Seunghyun Jang & Kihong Joung, 2021. "Subjective Perceptions of South Korean Parents Regarding the Effectiveness of Taekwondo Education for Adolescents and Its Characteristics: The Q Methodology Application," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-12, September.
    11. Ahmed, Shenaz & Bryant, Louise D. & Tizro, Zahra & Shickle, Darren, 2012. "Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: A cross-cultural, Q-methodology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(7), pages 997-1004.
    12. Giacaman, Rita & Mataria, Awad & Nguyen-Gillham, Viet & Safieh, Rula Abu & Stefanini, Angelo & Chatterji, Somnath, 2007. "Quality of life in the Palestinian context: An inquiry in war-like conditions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 68-84, April.
    13. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Ishrat Hossain, 2007. "The provision of informal care in terminal illness: An analysis of carers? needs using a discrete choice experiment," Working Papers 2007/12, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    14. van Exel, N.J.A. & de Graaf, G. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2006. ""Everyone dies, so you might as well have fun!" Attitudes of Dutch youths about their health lifestyle," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(10), pages 2628-2639, November.
    15. Finn, Mark & Sarangi, Srikant, 2008. "Quality of life as a mode of governance: NGO talk of HIV 'positive' health in India," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 1568-1578, April.
    16. Wonjae Jeon & Goomyeung Kwon & Kihong Joung, 2021. "Subjective Perceptions and Their Characteristics of Middle School Students Regarding the Effectiveness of the “0th Period Physical Education Class” in South Korea: The Q Methodology Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-12, November.
    17. Wonseok Choi & Wonjae Jeon, 2022. "A Study on the Subjectivity of Parents Regarding “0th-Period Physical Education Class” of Middle Schools in Korea Using Q-Methodology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-11, June.
    18. Thin Nyein Nyein Aung & Myo Nyein Aung & Saiyud Moolphate & Yuka Koyanagi & Mariko Ichikawa & Siripen Supakankunti & Motoyuki Yuasa, 2021. "Estimating Service Demand for Intermediary Care at a Community Integrated Intermediary Care Center among Family Caregivers of Older Adults Residing in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-14, June.
    19. Tahereh Zobeidi & Masoud Yazdanpanah & Masoumeh Forouzani & Bahman Khosravipour, 2016. "Climate change discourse among Iranian farmers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 521-535, October.
    20. Jiayuan Li, 2018. "Translating Idea into Reality? A Q-Methodological Investigation of Chinese Local Officials’ Response to the Initiative of a Happiness Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 433-452, September.

    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:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:5:p:555-566. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.