Eintrag weiter verarbeiten
6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs
Gespeichert in:
| Zeitschriftentitel: | Journal of Oncology Practice |
|---|---|
| Personen und Körperschaften: | , , , , , |
| In: | Journal of Oncology Practice, 4, 2008, 1, S. 2-7 |
| Format: | E-Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| veröffentlicht: |
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
|
| Schlagwörter: |
| author_facet |
Browman, George P. Manns, Braden Hagen, Neil Chambers, Carole R. Simon, Anita Sinclair, Shane Browman, George P. Manns, Braden Hagen, Neil Chambers, Carole R. Simon, Anita Sinclair, Shane |
|---|---|
| author |
Browman, George P. Manns, Braden Hagen, Neil Chambers, Carole R. Simon, Anita Sinclair, Shane |
| spellingShingle |
Browman, George P. Manns, Braden Hagen, Neil Chambers, Carole R. Simon, Anita Sinclair, Shane Journal of Oncology Practice 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs Health Policy Oncology (nursing) Oncology |
| author_sort |
browman, george p. |
| spelling |
Browman, George P. Manns, Braden Hagen, Neil Chambers, Carole R. Simon, Anita Sinclair, Shane 1554-7477 1935-469X American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Policy Oncology (nursing) Oncology http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jop.0812001 <jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose:</jats:title><jats:p> To design a tool to assist clinician participation with cancer drug funding decisions. Public policy-makers and insurers are struggling with funding decisions regarding increasingly expensive new cancer drugs. Increasingly, oncologists are contributing to the process of review that leads to such decisions. We were asked to design a system for ranking new cancer drugs for priority-based funding decisions. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods:</jats:title><jats:p> The “Accountability for Reasonableness” framework informed the design of a six-module multistakeholder decision process blending evidence-based traditional technology assessment methods with individual and cultural values elicitation. The tool was piloted in three settings: (1) videotaped simulated multistakeholder deliberation sessions; (2) clinical oncology leaders; and (3) a regional (Canadian provincial) pharmacy and therapeutics committee making formulary decisions. The modules involve: decision clarification, drug eligibility screening (filtering), clinical performance scoring index, cost modeling, data integration and values clarification, and process evaluation. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p> The tool was feasible to use, acceptable to participants, and able to rank candidate drugs. The pharmacy and therapeutics committee with whom it was tested used the tool as a part of their deliberations, and the tumor group leaders requested its incorporation into organization-based decision making. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion:</jats:title><jats:p> The decision tool can facilitate priority-based cancer drug funding decisions that meet the conditions of fairness as perceived by participants, including oncologists. </jats:p></jats:sec> 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs Journal of Oncology Practice |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1200/jop.0812001 |
| facet_avail |
Online Free |
| finc_class_facet |
Medizin |
| format |
ElectronicArticle |
| fullrecord |
blob:ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTIwMC9qb3AuMDgxMjAwMQ |
| id |
ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTIwMC9qb3AuMDgxMjAwMQ |
| institution |
DE-Pl11 DE-Rs1 DE-105 DE-14 DE-Ch1 DE-L229 DE-D275 DE-Bn3 DE-Brt1 DE-Zwi2 DE-D161 DE-Gla1 DE-Zi4 DE-15 |
| imprint |
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2008 |
| imprint_str_mv |
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2008 |
| issn |
1554-7477 1935-469X |
| issn_str_mv |
1554-7477 1935-469X |
| language |
English |
| mega_collection |
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (CrossRef) |
| match_str |
browman20086stepppsamodulartooltofacilitateclinicianparticipationinfairdecisionsforfundingnewcancerdrugs |
| publishDateSort |
2008 |
| publisher |
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) |
| recordtype |
ai |
| record_format |
ai |
| series |
Journal of Oncology Practice |
| source_id |
49 |
| title |
6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs |
| title_unstemmed |
6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs |
| title_full |
6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs |
| title_fullStr |
6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs |
| title_full_unstemmed |
6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs |
| title_short |
6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs |
| title_sort |
6-steppps: a modular tool to facilitate clinician participation in fair decisions for funding new cancer drugs |
| topic |
Health Policy Oncology (nursing) Oncology |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jop.0812001 |
| publishDate |
2008 |
| physical |
2-7 |
| description |
<jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose:</jats:title><jats:p> To design a tool to assist clinician participation with cancer drug funding decisions. Public policy-makers and insurers are struggling with funding decisions regarding increasingly expensive new cancer drugs. Increasingly, oncologists are contributing to the process of review that leads to such decisions. We were asked to design a system for ranking new cancer drugs for priority-based funding decisions. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods:</jats:title><jats:p> The “Accountability for Reasonableness” framework informed the design of a six-module multistakeholder decision process blending evidence-based traditional technology assessment methods with individual and cultural values elicitation. The tool was piloted in three settings: (1) videotaped simulated multistakeholder deliberation sessions; (2) clinical oncology leaders; and (3) a regional (Canadian provincial) pharmacy and therapeutics committee making formulary decisions. The modules involve: decision clarification, drug eligibility screening (filtering), clinical performance scoring index, cost modeling, data integration and values clarification, and process evaluation. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p> The tool was feasible to use, acceptable to participants, and able to rank candidate drugs. The pharmacy and therapeutics committee with whom it was tested used the tool as a part of their deliberations, and the tumor group leaders requested its incorporation into organization-based decision making. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion:</jats:title><jats:p> The decision tool can facilitate priority-based cancer drug funding decisions that meet the conditions of fairness as perceived by participants, including oncologists. </jats:p></jats:sec> |
| container_issue |
1 |
| container_start_page |
2 |
| container_title |
Journal of Oncology Practice |
| container_volume |
4 |
| format_de105 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 |
E-Article |
| format_del152 |
Buch |
| format_del189 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 |
Article |
| format_dezwi2 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_finc |
Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw |
Article, E-Article |
| _version_ |
1792333938619842560 |
| geogr_code |
not assigned |
| last_indexed |
2024-03-01T14:20:42.099Z |
| geogr_code_person |
not assigned |
| openURL |
url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fvufind.svn.sourceforge.net%3Agenerator&rft.title=6-STEPPPs%3A+A+Modular+Tool+to+Facilitate+Clinician+Participation+in+Fair+Decisions+for+Funding+New+Cancer+Drugs&rft.date=2008-01-01&genre=article&issn=1935-469X&volume=4&issue=1&spage=2&epage=7&pages=2-7&jtitle=Journal+of+Oncology+Practice&atitle=6-STEPPPs%3A+A+Modular+Tool+to+Facilitate+Clinician+Participation+in+Fair+Decisions+for+Funding+New+Cancer+Drugs&aulast=Sinclair&aufirst=Shane&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1200%2Fjop.0812001&rft.language%5B0%5D=eng |
| SOLR | |
| _version_ | 1792333938619842560 |
| author | Browman, George P., Manns, Braden, Hagen, Neil, Chambers, Carole R., Simon, Anita, Sinclair, Shane |
| author_facet | Browman, George P., Manns, Braden, Hagen, Neil, Chambers, Carole R., Simon, Anita, Sinclair, Shane, Browman, George P., Manns, Braden, Hagen, Neil, Chambers, Carole R., Simon, Anita, Sinclair, Shane |
| author_sort | browman, george p. |
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 2 |
| container_title | Journal of Oncology Practice |
| container_volume | 4 |
| description | <jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose:</jats:title><jats:p> To design a tool to assist clinician participation with cancer drug funding decisions. Public policy-makers and insurers are struggling with funding decisions regarding increasingly expensive new cancer drugs. Increasingly, oncologists are contributing to the process of review that leads to such decisions. We were asked to design a system for ranking new cancer drugs for priority-based funding decisions. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods:</jats:title><jats:p> The “Accountability for Reasonableness” framework informed the design of a six-module multistakeholder decision process blending evidence-based traditional technology assessment methods with individual and cultural values elicitation. The tool was piloted in three settings: (1) videotaped simulated multistakeholder deliberation sessions; (2) clinical oncology leaders; and (3) a regional (Canadian provincial) pharmacy and therapeutics committee making formulary decisions. The modules involve: decision clarification, drug eligibility screening (filtering), clinical performance scoring index, cost modeling, data integration and values clarification, and process evaluation. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p> The tool was feasible to use, acceptable to participants, and able to rank candidate drugs. The pharmacy and therapeutics committee with whom it was tested used the tool as a part of their deliberations, and the tumor group leaders requested its incorporation into organization-based decision making. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion:</jats:title><jats:p> The decision tool can facilitate priority-based cancer drug funding decisions that meet the conditions of fairness as perceived by participants, including oncologists. </jats:p></jats:sec> |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1200/jop.0812001 |
| facet_avail | Online, Free |
| finc_class_facet | Medizin |
| format | ElectronicArticle |
| format_de105 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 | Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 | Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 | E-Article |
| format_del152 | Buch |
| format_del189 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 | Article |
| format_dezwi2 | Article, E-Article |
| format_finc | Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw | Article, E-Article |
| geogr_code | not assigned |
| geogr_code_person | not assigned |
| id | ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTIwMC9qb3AuMDgxMjAwMQ |
| imprint | American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2008 |
| imprint_str_mv | American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2008 |
| institution | DE-Pl11, DE-Rs1, DE-105, DE-14, DE-Ch1, DE-L229, DE-D275, DE-Bn3, DE-Brt1, DE-Zwi2, DE-D161, DE-Gla1, DE-Zi4, DE-15 |
| issn | 1554-7477, 1935-469X |
| issn_str_mv | 1554-7477, 1935-469X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-01T14:20:42.099Z |
| match_str | browman20086stepppsamodulartooltofacilitateclinicianparticipationinfairdecisionsforfundingnewcancerdrugs |
| mega_collection | American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (CrossRef) |
| physical | 2-7 |
| publishDate | 2008 |
| publishDateSort | 2008 |
| publisher | American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) |
| record_format | ai |
| recordtype | ai |
| series | Journal of Oncology Practice |
| source_id | 49 |
| spelling | Browman, George P. Manns, Braden Hagen, Neil Chambers, Carole R. Simon, Anita Sinclair, Shane 1554-7477 1935-469X American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Policy Oncology (nursing) Oncology http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jop.0812001 <jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose:</jats:title><jats:p> To design a tool to assist clinician participation with cancer drug funding decisions. Public policy-makers and insurers are struggling with funding decisions regarding increasingly expensive new cancer drugs. Increasingly, oncologists are contributing to the process of review that leads to such decisions. We were asked to design a system for ranking new cancer drugs for priority-based funding decisions. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods:</jats:title><jats:p> The “Accountability for Reasonableness” framework informed the design of a six-module multistakeholder decision process blending evidence-based traditional technology assessment methods with individual and cultural values elicitation. The tool was piloted in three settings: (1) videotaped simulated multistakeholder deliberation sessions; (2) clinical oncology leaders; and (3) a regional (Canadian provincial) pharmacy and therapeutics committee making formulary decisions. The modules involve: decision clarification, drug eligibility screening (filtering), clinical performance scoring index, cost modeling, data integration and values clarification, and process evaluation. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p> The tool was feasible to use, acceptable to participants, and able to rank candidate drugs. The pharmacy and therapeutics committee with whom it was tested used the tool as a part of their deliberations, and the tumor group leaders requested its incorporation into organization-based decision making. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion:</jats:title><jats:p> The decision tool can facilitate priority-based cancer drug funding decisions that meet the conditions of fairness as perceived by participants, including oncologists. </jats:p></jats:sec> 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs Journal of Oncology Practice |
| spellingShingle | Browman, George P., Manns, Braden, Hagen, Neil, Chambers, Carole R., Simon, Anita, Sinclair, Shane, Journal of Oncology Practice, 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs, Health Policy, Oncology (nursing), Oncology |
| title | 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs |
| title_full | 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs |
| title_fullStr | 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs |
| title_full_unstemmed | 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs |
| title_short | 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs |
| title_sort | 6-steppps: a modular tool to facilitate clinician participation in fair decisions for funding new cancer drugs |
| title_unstemmed | 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs |
| topic | Health Policy, Oncology (nursing), Oncology |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jop.0812001 |