uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review
Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Show others and affiliations
2019 (Swedish)In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, ISSN 1472-6947, E-ISSN 1472-6947Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: The inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefitrisk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making. Methods: A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international). Results: From 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients’ valuations of treatment outcomes, patients’ benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies. Conclusions: Despite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019.
Keywords [en]
Patient preferences, Drug development, Drug evaluation, Decision-making, Stakeholders, Drug life cycle, Marketing authorization, Health technology assessment, Reimbursement
National Category
Social and Clinical Pharmacy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-394247DOI: 10.1186/s12911-019-0875-zOAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-394247DiVA, id: diva2:1358048
Projects
IMI-PREFERAvailable from: 2019-10-07 Created: 2019-10-07 Last updated: 2019-10-07

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text
In the same journal
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Social and Clinical Pharmacy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 26 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf