Author:
Maloney Mary Alison,Schwartz Lisa,O'Reilly Daria,Levine Mitchel
Abstract
Objectives:Value assessments of marketed drug technologies have been developed through disinvestment frameworks. Components of these frameworks are varied and implementation challenges are prevalent. The objective of this systematic literature review was to describe disinvestment framework process components for drugs and to report on framework components, challenges, and solutions.Methods:A systematic literature search was conducted using the terms: reassessment, reallocation, reinvestment, disinvestment, delist, decommission or obsolescence in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NLM PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from January 1, 2000, until November 14, 2015. Additional citations were identified through a gray literature search of Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) member Web sites and from bibliographies of full-text reviewed manuscripts.Results:Sixty-three articles underwent full text review and forty were included in the qualitative analysis. Framework components including disinvestment terms and definitions, identification and prioritization criteria and methods, assessment processes, stakeholders and dissemination strategies, challenges, and solutions were compiled. This review finds that stakeholders lack the political, administrative, and clinical will to support disinvestment and that there is not one disinvestment framework that is considered best practice.Conclusions:Drug technology disinvestment components and processes vary and challenges are numerous. Future research should focus on lessening value assessment challenges. This could include adopting more neutral framework terminology, setting fixed reassessment timelines, conducting therapeutic reviews, and modifying current qualitative decision-making assessment frameworks.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference45 articles.
1. European Medicines Agency. Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 4 report: Benefit-risk tools and processes. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2012/03/WC500123819.pdf (accessed October 12, 2016).
2. CASE STUDIES THAT ILLUSTRATE DISINVESTMENT AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES IN HEALTH CARE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
3. Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Technologies scoping report. 2013. http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/our_work/technologies_and_medicines/earlier_scoping_reports/technologies_scoping_report_16.aspx (accessed January 31, 2016).
4. Elshaug A , Watt A , Moss J , Hiller J . Policy perspectives on the obsolescence of health technologies in Canada. 2009. http://www.cadth.ca/collaboration-and-outreach/advisory-bodies/policy-forum/discussion-papers/policy-perspectives-obsolescence-health (accessed February 6, 2016).
5. Health Quality Ontario. Appropriateness initiative. 2014. http://www.hqontario.ca/Evidence/Evidence-Process/Appropriateness-Initiative (accessed January 30, 2016).
Cited by
10 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