4.7 Article

Prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: A survey of preferences of Norwegian doctors

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 56-62

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.019

关键词

Norway; Rare diseases; Priority setting; Doctor preferences; Societal preferences; Orphan drugs

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding doctors' preferences for prioritizing treatment of rare diseases can provide an important context for policy makers who must decide whether to exempt rare disease treatments, which are often quite expensive, from standard cost-effectiveness criteria. We surveyed a random sample of 551 Norwegian doctors in November 2011 and compared results to a similar survey of the Norwegian population. Respondents chose whether to prioritize treatment of patients with rare versus common diseases and then decided how to allocate funds between the two groups for each of two scenarios: (1) equal costs per person and (2) higher costs for the rare disease. Respondents were randomized to treatment costs for the rare disease in the second scenario that were either 8 or 25 times higher than treating the common disease. Except for different prevalence, the diseases were described identically. Doctors displayed no general preference for prioritizing treatment of rare diseases, but a large number favored the principle of reserving a small share of funds for rare disease patients. Doctors' responses differed significantly from those of the general population when the rare disease was more costly to treat. A larger share of doctors prioritized the common disease group for treatment while a smaller share expressed indifference. When dividing funds between the two patient groups, doctors allocated a smaller share of funds to the rare disease. Doctors were much less likely than the general population to divide funds equally between the groups. This study indicates that there is little support among Norwegian doctors for prioritizing the treatment of rare diseases. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据