Skip to main content
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2017

01.08.2017 | Commentary

Giving Patients a Meaningful Voice in European Health Technology Assessments: The Role of Health Preference Research

verfasst von: Axel C. Mühlbacher, F. Reed Johnson

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

Throughout Europe, formal health technology assessments (HTAs) are increasingly being required for regulatory decision making. Although the institutional and legal contexts for HTA vary by country, HTA typically involves evaluations of causal evidence and requires assessing tradeoffs among multiple clinical trial endpoints and multiple, often conflicting objectives. Although the assessment requires evaluating the quantity and quality of evidence, decision makers do apply values at some point that attach weights to multiple decision criteria from multiple perspectives. Thus, the outcomes of decision processes depend both on their identified endpoints and on the relative importance attached to the decision criteria (i.e., the decision weights) [1]. …
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A. Making good decisions in healthcare with multi-criteria decision analysis: the use, current research and future development of MCDA. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(1):29–40.CrossRef Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A. Making good decisions in healthcare with multi-criteria decision analysis: the use, current research and future development of MCDA. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(1):29–40.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat European Medicines Agency. Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 2 report: applicability of current tools and processes for regulatory benefit-risk assessment. Revision 1. London: European Medicines Agency; 2010. European Medicines Agency. Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 2 report: applicability of current tools and processes for regulatory benefit-risk assessment. Revision 1. London: European Medicines Agency; 2010.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat European Medicines Agency. Human Scientific Committees’ Working Party with Patients’ and Consumers’ Organisations (PCWP) meeting: meeting minutes. London: European Medicines Agency; 2013. European Medicines Agency. Human Scientific Committees’ Working Party with Patients’ and Consumers’ Organisations (PCWP) meeting: meeting minutes. London: European Medicines Agency; 2013.
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Mühlbacher A, Johnson FR. Choice experiments to quantify preferences for health and healthcare: state of the practice. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(3):253–66.CrossRef Mühlbacher A, Johnson FR. Choice experiments to quantify preferences for health and healthcare: state of the practice. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(3):253–66.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):345–65.CrossRef Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):345–65.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.CrossRef Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Choice-based conjoint analysis: pilot project to identify, weight, and prioritize multiple attributes in the indication “hepatitis C”. Executive summary. Cologne: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care; 2014. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Choice-based conjoint analysis: pilot project to identify, weight, and prioritize multiple attributes in the indication “hepatitis C”. Executive summary. Cologne: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care; 2014.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Mühlbacher AC, Bridges JF, Bethge S, Dintsios CM, Schwalm A, Gerber-Grote A, Nübling M. Preferences for antiviral therapy of hepatitis C: a discrete-choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2017;18(2):155–65.CrossRef Mühlbacher AC, Bridges JF, Bethge S, Dintsios CM, Schwalm A, Gerber-Grote A, Nübling M. Preferences for antiviral therapy of hepatitis C: a discrete-choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2017;18(2):155–65.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Mühlbacher A, Sadler A. The probabilistic efficiency frontier: a framework for cost-effectiveness analysis in Germany put into practice for hepatitis C treatment options. Value Health. 2017;20(2):266–72.CrossRef Mühlbacher A, Sadler A. The probabilistic efficiency frontier: a framework for cost-effectiveness analysis in Germany put into practice for hepatitis C treatment options. Value Health. 2017;20(2):266–72.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Mühlbacher AC, Zweifel P, Kaczynski A, Johnson FR. Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues. Health Econ Rev. 2015;1(6):1–12. Mühlbacher AC, Zweifel P, Kaczynski A, Johnson FR. Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues. Health Econ Rev. 2015;1(6):1–12.
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Chalkidou K, Anderson G. Comparative effectiveness research: international experiences and implications for the United States. New York: NIHCM Foundation, Academy Health; 2009. Chalkidou K, Anderson G. Comparative effectiveness research: international experiences and implications for the United States. New York: NIHCM Foundation, Academy Health; 2009.
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(1):75–89.CrossRef Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(1):75–89.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Cleemput I, Devriese S, Kohn L, Devos C, Van Til J, Groothuis K, Vandekerckhove P, Van de Voorde C. Incorporating societal preferences in reimbursement decisions: relative importance of decision criteria according to Belgian citizens. Health Service Research (HSR). KCE Report 234 (D/2014/10.273/91). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre; 2014. Cleemput I, Devriese S, Kohn L, Devos C, Van Til J, Groothuis K, Vandekerckhove P, Van de Voorde C. Incorporating societal preferences in reimbursement decisions: relative importance of decision criteria according to Belgian citizens. Health Service Research (HSR). KCE Report 234 (D/2014/10.273/91). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre; 2014.
Metadaten
Titel
Giving Patients a Meaningful Voice in European Health Technology Assessments: The Role of Health Preference Research
verfasst von
Axel C. Mühlbacher
F. Reed Johnson
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0249-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2017

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2017 Zur Ausgabe