Consumer perspectives of accelerated access to medicines: a qualitative study

Author:

Pace JessicaORCID,Ghinea Narcyz,Pearson Sallie-AnneORCID,Kerridge Ian,Lipworth Wendy

Abstract

PurposeIn this study, the authors aimed to explore consumer perspectives on accelerated access to medicines. The authors were particularly interested in how they balance competing considerations of safety, efficacy, equity and access; whether and how their views change when there are different levels of uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of new medicines; and the procedures that they think should be used to make decisions about accelerated access to new medicines.Design/methodology/approachThis was an exploratory qualitative study. Thirteen semi-structured interviews with patient advocates and two focus groups with patients were conducted and analysed thematically. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed through inductive thematic analysis.FindingsParticipants outlined a range of justifications for accelerated access, including addressing unmet medical needs and encouraging further research and development. However, they were also cognisant of the potential risks and viewed ongoing data collection, disinvestment and market withdrawal as ways to address these. They also emphasised the importance of transparent decisions being made by people with relevant expertise, based on a thorough consideration of scientific evidence and stakeholder perspectives.Originality/valueThis is the first study to comprehensively explore Australian consumers' views of accelerated access to medicines. The results suggest that consumers want timely access to new medicines, but not at the expense of safety, efficacy, equity and sustainability. While accelerated access programs are likely to be welcomed by consumers, they must be fully informed of their conditions and limitations, and robust post-market data surveillance must be implemented and enforced to protect the interests of both individual patients and the broader community.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Health Policy,Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)

Reference64 articles.

1. Public and patient involvement in health technology assessment: a framework for action;International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care,2016

2. Australian Government Department of Health (2011), “PBS: framework for the introduction of a managed Entry scheme for submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee”, available at: http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/publication/factsheets/shared/framework-for-introduction-of-managed-entry-scheme-for-PBAC-submissions (accessed 3 February 2021).

3. Australian Government Department of Health (2016a), “Australian government response to the review of medicines and medical devices regulation”, available at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/MMD-govresp (accessed 3 Feburary 2021).

4. Australian Government Department of Health (2016b), “About the guidelines”, available at: https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/information/about-the-guidelines.html (accessed 3 Feburary 2021).

5. Australian Government Department of Health (2017), “Submissions received and TGA response: changes to accessing unapproved therapeutic goods through the authorised prescriber (AP) and special access schemes (SAS)”, available at: https://www.tga.gov.au/submissions-received-and-tga-response-changes-accessing-unapproved-therapeutic-goods-through-authorised-prescriber-ap-and-special-access-schemes-sas (accessed 3 February 2021).

Cited by 4 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