Should We Consider Including a Value for “Hope” as an Additional Benefit Within Health Technology Assessment?

Peasgood, Tessa; Mukuria, Clara; Rowen, Donna; Tsuchiya, Aki; Wailoo, Allan

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2022.03.006

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, factors important to the patient regarding the impact their diagnosis will have on those around them (Vrinzen et al, 2022) or life satisfaction should be considered in any assessment (Hall, 2020). Furthermore, a patient's preference can be reflected in their willingness to pay for or undergo treatment based on whether that treatment can offer them hope for recovery (Peasgood et al, 2022). Several authors have noted that patients are more willing to pay for a "hopeful therapy", with patients with cancer identified as those who prefer a therapy that has the possibility of a large therapeutic gain, even when the average response to that therapy may be similar to other options (Lakdawalla et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel methods and technologies for the evaluation of drug outcomes and policies

2024

Frontiers Research Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frontiers is more than just an open access publisher of scholarly articles: it is a pioneering approach to the world of academia, radically improving the way scholarly research is managed. The grand vision of Frontiers is a world where all people have an equal opportunity to seek, share and generate knowledge. Frontiers provides immediate and permanent online open access to all its publications, but this alone is not enough to realize our grand goals. Frontiers journal seriesThe Frontiers journal series is a multi-tier and interdisciplinary set of openaccess, online journals, promising a paradigm shift from the current review, selection and dissemination processes in academic publishing. All Frontiers journals are driven by researchers for researchers; therefore, they constitute a service to the scholarly community. At the same time, the Frontiers journal series operates on a revolutionary invention, the tiered publishing system, initially addressing specific communities of scholars, and gradually climbing up to broader public understanding, thus serving the interests of the lay society, too. Dedication to qualityEach Frontiers article is a landmark of the highest quality, thanks to genuinely collaborative interactions between authors and review editors, who include some of the world's best academicians. Research must be certified by peers before entering a stream of knowledge that may eventually reach the public -and shape society; therefore, Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews. Frontiers revolutionizes research publishing by freely delivering the most outstanding research, evaluated with no bias from both the academic and social point of view. By applying the most advanced information technologies, Frontiers is catapulting scholarly publishing into a new generation. What are Frontiers Research Topics?Frontiers Research Topics are very popular trademarks of the Frontiers journals series: they are collections of at least ten articles, all centered on a particular subject. With their unique mix of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Frontiers Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel methods and technologies for the evaluation of drug outcomes and policies

2024

Frontiers Research Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our study showed that the quantitative methods that aim to measure ‘hope’ empirically are emerging. There are viewpoints that support and refute the inclusion of ‘hope’ alongside standard measures of health gain ( 7 ). The evidence on the quantification methods for ‘hope’ based on patients’ stated preferences for uncertain treatments is not strong and future research could strengthen this evidence base.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, there is evidence that monitoring treatment side effects in real-time can improve outcomes for patients with cancer, including a potential benefit in survival rates ( 2 , 6 ). However, patients may express their preferences for innovative durable therapies (e.g., immune checkpoint inhibitors) with uncertain levels of benefit, with a likelihood of a good outcome ( 7 ). Moreover, some patients (i.e., risk-seeking patients) may be willing to take additional risks (at end of life situations) to increase the probability of a survival outcome.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating risk preferences of patients in the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer

Zaim

Redekop²,

Groot³

2023

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immunotherapy offers a distinctive mechanism of action compared to traditional treatments, arising from additional value dimensions that may not be captured in standard health technology assessments. Cancer patients may have the expectation that immunotherapy provides durable, long-term survival gains. Moreover, some patients may be willing to take a ‘risk’ to undergo immunotherapy to achieve better survival outcomes. We reviewed quantitative methods that explored patients’ risk preferences in their non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment choices, in PubMed (MEDLINE), from January 1, 2015, until July 1, 2022. The consideration of a value dimension (‘hope’) based on patients’ risk-seeking preferences is specifically addressed for the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC. We reported that the quantitative methods that aim to measure patients’ risk preferences or ‘hope’ empirically are emerging. Value assessments should not only comprise survival improvements for the mean or median patient but also consider methods that reflect durable, long-term overall survival gains for risk-seeking patients. However, the published evidence for incorporating ‘hope’ based on patients’ stated preferences for uncertain treatment profiles is not strong, and future research could strengthen this evidence base. We encourage further research on the development and validation of quantification methods to incorporate ‘hope’ and risk preferences of patients treated with immunotherapy for NSCLC and beyond.

show abstract

“…For example, factors important to the patient regarding the impact their diagnosis will have on those around them ( Vrinzen et al, 2022 ) or life satisfaction should be considered in any assessment ( Hall, 2020 ). Furthermore, a patient’s preference can be reflected in their willingness to pay for or undergo treatment based on whether that treatment can offer them hope for recovery ( Peasgood et al, 2022 ). Several authors have noted that patients are more willing to pay for a “hopeful therapy”, with patients with cancer identified as those who prefer a therapy that has the possibility of a large therapeutic gain, even when the average response to that therapy may be similar to other options ( Lakdawalla et al, 2012 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstructing the value puzzle in health technology assessment: a pragmatic review to determine which modelling methods can account for additional value elements

Muir¹,

Radhakrishnan²,

Freitag³

et al. 2023

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health technology assessment (HTA) has traditionally relied on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as a cornerstone of evaluation of new therapies, assessing the clinical validity and utility, the efficacy, and the cost-effectiveness of new interventions. The current format of cost-effectiveness analysis, however, does not allow for inclusion of more holistic aspects of health and, therefore, value elements for new technologies such as the impact on patients and society beyond its pure clinical and economic value. This study aimed to review the recent modelling attempts to expand the traditional cost-effectiveness analysis approach by incorporating additional elements of value in health technology assessment. A pragmatic literature review was conducted for articles published between 2012 and 2022 reporting cost-effectiveness analysis including value aspects beyond the clinical and cost-effectiveness estimates; searches identified 13 articles that were eligible for inclusion. These expanded modelling approaches mainly focused on integrating the impact of societal values and health equity in cost-effectiveness analysis, both of which were championed as important aspects of health technology assessment that should be incorporated into future technology assessments. The reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis methods included modification of the current cost-effectiveness analysis methodology (distributional cost-effectiveness analysis, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis, extended cost-effectiveness analysis) or the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Of these approaches, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis appears to have the most potential by expanding traditional aspects of value, as it uses techniques already familiar to health technology assessment agencies but also allows space for incorporation of qualitative aspects of a product’s value. This review showcases that methods to unravel additional value elements for technology assessment exist, therefore, patient access to promising technologies can be improved by moving the discussion from “if” to “how” additional value elements can inform decision-making.

show abstract

Should We Consider Including a Value for “Hope” as an Additional Benefit Within Health Technology Assessment?

Cited by 9 publications

References 40 publications

Novel methods and technologies for the evaluation of drug outcomes and policies

Novel methods and technologies for the evaluation of drug outcomes and policies

Incorporating risk preferences of patients in the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer

Reconstructing the value puzzle in health technology assessment: a pragmatic review to determine which modelling methods can account for additional value elements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About