Search

Introduction Mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) are increasingly important in the assessment of the benefit–risk profile of pharmaceutical treatments for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Interpretation of MTCs requires a clear understanding of the methods of analysis and population studied. The objectives of this work were to compare MTCs of pharmaceutical treatments for RRMS, including a detailed description of differences in populations, treatments assessed, methods used and findings; and to discuss key considerations when conducting an MTC. Methods Fourteen databases were searched until July 2019 to identify MTCs (published during or after 2010) in adults (at least 18 years of age) with RRMS or rapidly evolving severe RRMS treated with any form of pharmaceutical treatment. No language restriction was imposed. Results Twenty-seven MTCs assessing 21 treatments were identified. Comparison highlighted many differences in conduct and reporting between MTCs relating to the patient populations or treatments included, duration of follow-up and outcomes of interest measured. The lack of similarity between the MTCs leads to questions about variability in the robustness of analyses and makes comparisons between studies challenging. Conclusion Given the importance of MTCs for healthcare decision-making, it is imperative that reporting of methods, results and assumptions is clear and transparent to allow accurate interpretation of findings. For MTCs to be relevant, the choice of outcome measures should reflect clinical practice. Combination of treatments or of outcomes measured at different points of time should be avoided, as should imputation without justification. Furthermore, all approved treatment options should be included and updates of MTCs should be conducted when data for new treatments are published. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40120-020-00213-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Patient preferences (PP), which are investigated in PP studies using qualitative or quantitative methods, are a growing area of interest to the following stakeholders involved in the medical product lifecycle: academics, health technology assessment bodies, payers, industry, patients, physicians, and regulators. However, the use of PP in decisions along the medical product lifecycle remains limited. As the adoption of PP heavily relies on these stakeholders, knowledge of their perceptions of PP is critical. Objective: This study aimed to characterize stakeholders’ attitudes, needs, and concerns with respect to PP in decision making along the medical product lifecycle. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n = 143) were conducted with academics (n = 24), health technology assessment/payer representatives (n = 24), industry representatives (n = 24), patients, caregivers and patient representatives (n = 24), physicians (n = 24), and regulators (n = 23) from seven European countries and the USA. Interviews were conducted between April and August 2017. The framework method was used to organize the data and identify themes and key findings in each interviewed stakeholder group. Results: Interviewees reported being unfamiliar (43%), moderately familiar (42%), or very familiar (15%) with preference methods and studies. Interviewees across stakeholder groups generally supported the idea of using PP in the medical product lifecycle but expressed mixed opinions about the feasibility and impact of using PP in decision making. Interviewees from all stakeholder groups stressed the importance of increasing stakeholders’ understanding of the concept of PP and preference methods and ensuring patients’ understanding of the questions asked in PP studies. Key concerns and needs in each interviewed stakeholder group were as follows: (1) academics: investigating the validity, reliability, reproducibility, and generalizability of preference methods; (2) health technology assessment/payer representatives: developing quality criteria for evaluating PP studies and gaining insights into how to weigh them in reimbursement/payer decision making; (3) industry representatives: obtaining guidance on PP studies and recognition on the importance of PP from decision makers; (4) patients, caregivers, and patient representatives: providing an incentive and adequate information towards patients when participating in PP studies; (5) physicians: avoiding bias as a result of commercial agendas in PP studies and clarifying how to deal with subjective and emotional elements when measuring PP; and (6) regulators: avoiding the misuse of PP study results to overrule the traditional efficacy and safety criteria used for marketing authorization and obtaining robust PP study results. Conclusions: Despite the interest all interviewed stakeholder groups reported in PP, the effective use of PP in decision making across the medical product lifecycle is currently hampered by a lack of standardization and consensus on how to both measure and use PP., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background Pregnant women can misinform or withhold their reproductive and medical information from providers when they interact with them during care decision-making interactions, although, the information clients reveal or withhold while seeking care plays a critical role in the quality of care provided. This study explored ‘how’ and ‘why’ pregnant women in Ghana control their past obstetric and reproductive information as they interact with providers at their first antenatal visit, and how this influences providers’ decision-making at the time and in subsequent care encounters. Methods This research was a case-study of two public hospitals in southern Ghana, using participant observation, conversations, interviews and focus group discussions with antenatal, delivery, and post-natal clients and providers over a 22-month period. The Ghana Health Service Ethical Review Committee gave ethical approval for the study (Ethical approval number: GHS-ERC: 03/01/12). Data analysis was conducted according to grounded theory. Results Many of the women in this study selectively controlled the reproductive, obstetric and social history information they shared with their provider at their first visit. They believed that telling a complete history might cause providers to verbally abuse them and they would be regarded in a negative light. Examples of the information controlled included concealing the actual number of children or self-induced abortions. The women adopted this behaviour as a resistance strategy to mitigate providers’ disrespectful treatment through verbal abuses and questioning women’s practices that contradicted providers’ biomedical ideologies. Secondly, they utilised this strategy to evade public humiliation because of inadequate privacy in the hospitals. The withheld information affected quality of care decision-making and care provision processes and outcomes, since misinformed providers were unaware of particular women’s risk profile. Conclusion Many mothers in this study withhold or misinform providers about their obstetric, reproductive and social information as a way to avoid receiving disrespectful maternal care and protect their privacy. Improving provider client relationship skills, empowering clients and providing adequate infrastructure to ensure privacy and confidentiality in hospitals, are critical to the provision of respectful maternal care. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-1916-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives: Several studies have reported multiple barriers to and facilitators for the uptake of health technology assessment (HTA) information by policy makers. This study elicited, using best-worst scaling (BWS), the most important barriers and facilitators and their relative weight in the use of HTA by policy makers.Methods: Two BWS object case surveys (one for barriers, one for facilitators) were conducted among sixteen policy makers and thirty-three HTA experts in the Netherlands. A list of twenty-two barriers and nineteen facilitators was included. In each choice task, participants were asked to choose the most important and the least important barrier/facilitator from a set of five. We used Hierarchical Bayes modeling to generate the mean relative importance score (RIS) for each factor and a subgroup analysis was conducted to assess differences between policy makers and HTA experts.Results: The five most important barriers (RIS > 6.00) were “no explicit framework for decision-making process,” “insufficient support by stakeholders,” “lack of support,” “limited generalizability,” and “absence of appropriate incentives.” The six most important facilitators were: “availability of explicit framework for decision making,” “sufficient support by stakeholders,” “appropriate incentives,” “sufficient quality,” “sufficient awareness,” and “sufficient support within the organization.” Overall, perceptions did not differ markedly between policy makers and HTA experts.Conclusions: Our study suggests that barriers and facilitators related to “policy characteristics” and “organization and resources” were particularly important. It is important to stimulate a pulse at the national level to create an explicit framework for including HTA in the decision-making context.