No abstract

Background Late and misdiagnoses of rare disease patients are common and often result in medical, physical and mental burden for the patient, and financial and emotional burden for the patient’s family. Low rare disease awareness among physicians is believed to be one of the reasons for these late and misdiagnoses of rare disease patients. The aim of this study was to investigate how information and education could be tailored to the needs and preferences of physicians in Belgium to increase their rare disease awareness and support them in diagnosing patients with a rare disorder. Nine exploratory interviews with Belgian rare disease experts were performed in December 2016 to help the development of a questionnaire on information needs of physicians and their consulted information sources in rare disease awareness and diagnosis. This online questionnaire was then completed by Belgian physicians ( n = 295), including general practitioners (GPs), pediatricians and other specialists (i.e. neurologists, pediatric neurologists, endocrinologists and pediatric endocrinologists) during January and February 2017. Results Rare disease knowledge and awareness were the lowest among GPs and the highest among specialists. Interviewed experts indicated that physicians’ academic and continuous medical education should be focused more on “red flags” to increase rare disease attentiveness in daily clinical practice. GPs scored their academic education on rare diseases as insufficient but pediatricians and other specialists scored it significantly better ( p < 0.001). Even though GPs declared to only need information on rare diseases when having a rare disease patient in their practice, specialists indicated to need more rare disease information in general. Most physicians confirmed that they had specific information needs regarding rare diseases. Unlike specialists, the majority of GPs were unaware of information sources such as Orphanet. Conclusion In order to effectively support physicians in Belgium to diagnose rare diseases early, the academic medical education on rare diseases should be revised. Teaching methods should be focused more on casuistry and “red flags”. An Orphanet-like digital platform about rare disease symptoms, diagnostic tests and reference centers might be ideal to support correct and timely diagnosis. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13023-019-1075-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Our study showed that rheumatologists, more so than patients, were convinced that there can be differences between originators and biosimilars. Despite safety being the major concern of patients, patients trusted their physician's decision to start on or switch to a biosimilar. The evolution of the uptake of biosimilars in Belgium might thus depend mainly on the perception of physicians.

Objectives: To investigate stakeholder perspectives on how patient preference studies (PPS) should be designed and conducted to allow for inclusion of patient preferences in decision-making along the medical product life cycle (MPLC), and how patient preferences can be used in such decision-making.Methods: Two literature reviews and semi-structured interviews (n = 143) with healthcare stakeholders in Europe and the US were conducted; results of these informed the design of focus group guides. Eight focus groups were conducted with European patients, industry representatives and regulators, and with US regulators and European/Canadian health technology assessment (HTA) representatives. Focus groups were analyzed thematically using NVivo.Results: Stakeholder perspectives on how PPS should be designed and conducted were as follows: 1) study design should be informed by the research questions and patient population; 2) preferred treatment attributes and levels, as well as trade-offs among attributes and levels should be investigated; 3) the patient sample and method should match the MPLC phase; 4) different stakeholders should collaborate; and 5) results from PPS should be shared with relevant stakeholders. The value of patient preferences in decision-making was found to increase with the level of patient preference sensitivity of decisions on medical products. Stakeholders mentioned that patient preferences are hardly used in current decision-making. Potential applications for patient preferences across industry, regulatory and HTA processes were identified. Four applications seemed most promising for systematic integration of patient preferences: 1) benefit-risk assessment by industry and regulators at the marketing-authorization phase; 2) assessment of major contribution to patient care by European regulators; 3) cost-effectiveness analysis; and 4) multi criteria decision analysis in HTA.Conclusions: The value of patient preferences for decision-making depends on the level of collaboration across stakeholders; the match between the research question, MPLC phase, sample, and preference method used in PPS; and the sensitivity of the decision regarding a medical product to patient preferences. Promising applications for patient preferences should be further explored with stakeholders to optimize their inclusion in decision-making.