Value-based evidence across health care sectors: a push for transparent real-world studies, data, and evidence dissemination

Author:

van den Broek Remon W. M.ORCID,Matheis Robert J.,Bright Jennifer L.,Hartog Tessa E.,Perfetto Eleanor M.

Abstract

Abstract There is currently a heightened need for transparency in pharmaceutical sectors. The inclusion of real-world (RW) evidence, in addition to clinical trial evidence, in decision-making processes, was an important step forward toward a more inclusive established value proposition. This advance has introduced new transparency challenges. Increasing transparency is a critical step toward accelerating improvement in type, quality, and access to data, regardless of whether these originate from clinical trials or from RW studies. However, so far, advances in transparency have been relatively restricted to clinical trials, and there remains a lack of similar expectations or standards of transparency concerning the generation and reporting of RW data. This perspective paper aims to highlight the need for transparency concerning RW studies, data, and evidence across health care sectors, to identify areas for improvement, and provide concrete recommendations and practices for the future. Specific issues are discussed from different stakeholder perspectives, culminating in recommended actions, from individual stakeholder perspectives, for improved RW study, data, and evidence transparency. Furthermore, a list of potential guidelines for consideration by stakeholders is proposed. While recommendations from different stakeholder perspectives are made, true transparency in the processes involved in the generation, reporting, and use of RW evidence will require a concerted effort from all stakeholders across health care sectors.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Health Policy

Reference63 articles.

1. Good Practices for Real‐World Data Studies of Treatment and/or Comparative Effectiveness: Recommendations from the Joint ISPOR‐ISPE Special Task Force on Real‐World Evidence in Health Care Decision Making

2. UK Standards for Public Involvement (2020) The UK Standards: setting the scene. https://sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-standards/standards/setting-the-scene (Accessed 12 December 2020).

3. Real-World Evidence — What Is It and What Can It Tell Us?

4. European Patients’ Academy (EUPATI) (2016) Patient involvement in the HTA decision-making process. Available at https://toolbox.eupati.eu/resources/patient-involvement-in-the-hta-decision-making-process/ (Accessed 12 December 2020).

5. AHRQ CHAPS (2020) Databases. Available at https://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/cahps-database/index.html (Accessed 10 December 2020).

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3