• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

我们是否产生了影响?一项关于泛加肿瘤药物评审中患者参与度的定性研究:患者群体的观点。

Are We Making a Difference? A Qualitative Study of Patient Engagement at the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: Perspectives of Patient Groups.

机构信息

Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Value Health. 2020 Sep;23(9):1157-1162. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.06.003. Epub 2020 Aug 7.

DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2020.06.003
PMID:32940233
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Despite wide support for patient involvement in health technology assessments (HTA), determining meaningful engagement is complex. This article explores experiences and perceptions among patient groups participating in the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)'s pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) process.

METHODS

We created a qualitative interview study comprising 22 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals representing 21 different patient groups registered with the pCODR process. The analysis used a qualitative descriptive approach employing techniques from grounded theory.

RESULTS

Patient groups view the ability to make submissions to the pCODR process as a meaningful activity closely aligned with organizational priorities. Concurrently, they face substantial resource challenges to prepare submissions, including high opportunity costs and difficulty accessing needed literature and finding relevant patients. Although patient groups felt that CADTH is committed to transparency, they expressed considerable uncertainty around the direct impact of their submissions and desired additional avenues for engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests a strong commitment by patient groups to participate in the pCODR process despite uncertainty about how their submissions are used to inform HTA recommendations. Identifying opportunities to provide both financial and nonfinancial resources to patient groups is crucial to encouraging and supporting their meaningful participation in HTA processes.

摘要

目的

尽管广泛支持患者参与卫生技术评估(HTA),但确定有意义的参与是复杂的。本文探讨了参与加拿大药物和技术评估机构(CADTH)全加肿瘤药物审查(pCODR)过程的患者群体的经验和看法。

方法

我们创建了一项定性访谈研究,包括对 21 个不同患者群体的 22 名代表进行的 22 次半结构化电话访谈。分析采用了定性描述方法,并运用了扎根理论的技术。

结果

患者群体认为向 pCODR 过程提交意见是一项有意义的活动,与组织的优先事项密切相关。同时,他们在准备提交意见时面临着巨大的资源挑战,包括高机会成本和难以获取所需的文献以及找到相关患者。尽管患者群体认为 CADTH 致力于透明性,但他们对自己的提交如何影响 HTA 建议表示相当大的不确定性,并希望有更多的参与途径。

结论

这项研究表明,尽管患者群体对其提交意见如何用于为 HTA 建议提供信息存在不确定性,但他们强烈承诺参与 pCODR 过程。确定为患者群体提供财务和非财务资源的机会对于鼓励和支持他们在 HTA 过程中的有意义参与至关重要。

相似文献

1
Are We Making a Difference? A Qualitative Study of Patient Engagement at the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: Perspectives of Patient Groups.我们是否产生了影响?一项关于泛加肿瘤药物评审中患者参与度的定性研究:患者群体的观点。
Value Health. 2020 Sep;23(9):1157-1162. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.06.003. Epub 2020 Aug 7.
2
What does meaningful look like? A qualitative study of patient engagement at the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: perspectives of reviewers and payers.有意义的样子是什么?一项对加拿大泛癌症药物审查中患者参与情况的定性研究:审查员和付款人的观点。
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2018 Apr;23(2):72-79. doi: 10.1177/1355819617750686. Epub 2018 Apr 6.
3
Health-related quality of life in oncology drug reimbursement submissions in Canada: A review of submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review.加拿大肿瘤药物报销申请中的健康相关生活质量:对全加肿瘤药物审查的申请评估。
Cancer. 2020 Jan 1;126(1):148-155. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32455. Epub 2019 Sep 23.
4
Financial conflicts of interest of clinicians making submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: a descriptive study.临床医生在向加拿大泛癌症药物审查机构提交申请时的财务利益冲突:一项描述性研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 26;9(7):e030750. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030750.
5
Evolution of health technology assessment: best practices of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review.卫生技术评估的演变:泛加拿大肿瘤药物审查的最佳实践
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015 Jun 3;7:287-98. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S82549. eCollection 2015.
6
The impact of willingness-to-pay threshold on price reduction recommendations for oncology drugs: a review of assessments conducted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.支付意愿阈值对肿瘤药物降价建议的影响:加拿大卫生药品和技术局所做评估综述
J Comp Eff Res. 2024 May;13(5):e230178. doi: 10.57264/cer-2023-0178. Epub 2024 Apr 3.
7
Activities of the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance: An Observational Analysis.泛加拿大制药联盟的活动:一项观察性分析。
J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Aug 7;25(2):e12-e22. doi: 10.22374/1710-6222.25.2.2.
8
The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011-2017.在加拿大,癌症药物报销中临床、经济、患者价值观和可行性标准的相对重要性:对 2011-2017 年加拿大泛癌种药物评审建议的揭示偏好分析。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Apr;36(4):467-475. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0610-0.
9
Patient advocate perspectives on involvement in HTA: an international snapshot.患者权益倡导者对参与卫生技术评估的看法:国际概览
Res Involv Engagem. 2017 Jan 10;3:2. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0052-9. eCollection 2017.
10
The extent and quality of qualitative evidence included in health technology assessments: a review of submissions to NICE and CADTH.卫生技术评估中纳入的定性证据的范围和质量:对 NICE 和 CADTH 提交材料的审查。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023 Dec 21;40(1):e6. doi: 10.1017/S0266462323002829.

引用本文的文献

1
Patient engagement for the development of equity-focused health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations: a case study of two Canadian HTA organizations.患者参与以制定关注公平性的卫生技术评估(HTA)建议:加拿大两个HTA组织的案例研究
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2025 Mar 28;41(1):e27. doi: 10.1017/S0266462325000182.
2
Perception of non-layperson advisory committee members on the application of a discrete choice experiment instrument to patients and advisory committee members: a qualitative study.非外行人咨询委员会成员对离散选择实验工具应用于患者和咨询委员会成员的看法:一项定性研究。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2025 Feb 25;41(1):e31. doi: 10.1017/S0266462325000029.
3
How are patient inputs considered in HTA? A thematic document analysis of NICE ultra-rare disease appraisals.
卫生技术评估中如何考虑患者的意见?对英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所超罕见病评估的主题文献分析。
Eur J Health Econ. 2024 Dec 27. doi: 10.1007/s10198-024-01748-1.
4
A HTA of what? Reframing through including patient perspectives in health technology assessment processes.一项什么样的 HTA?通过纳入患者视角重新构建卫生技术评估流程。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023 May 18;39(1):e27. doi: 10.1017/S0266462323000132.
5
Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.设计和实施卫生技术评估的审议程序:HTAi/ISPOR 联合工作组的良好实践报告。
Value Health. 2022 Jun;25(6):869-886. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.03.018.
6
Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.设计和实施卫生技术评估的审议程序:HTAi/ISPOR 联合工作组的良好实践报告。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022 Jun 3;38(1):e37. doi: 10.1017/S0266462322000198.
7
Integrating health technology assessment and the right to health: a qualitative content analysis of procedural values in South African judicial decisions.将健康技术评估与健康权相结合:南非司法判决中程序价值的定性内容分析。
Health Policy Plan. 2022 May 12;37(5):644-654. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czab132.