Cited by 20Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePharmaceutical Economics and PolicyTechnology Assessment and Management

DRUG DISINVESTMENT FRAMEWORKS: COMPONENTS, CHALLENGES, AND SOLUTIONS

Maloney, Mary Alison, Schwartz, Lisa, O'Reilly, Daria, Levine, Mitchel·2017·International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0266462317000277

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous studies have described that obtaining support for disinvestment is very difficult because stakeholders often lack the will to support disinvestment due to limited perceived value and resistance to losing therapy options.

    “it has also been described in previous studies that obtaining support for disinvestment is very difficult as stakeholders often lack the will to support disinvestment because of limited perceived value of disinvestment, which may take some time to realize, and their resistance to immediately “losing” therapy options [12, 35].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maloney, M. A., Schwartz, L., O'Reilly, D., & Levine, M.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health Research Institute (CA)
Venue
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Published
2017
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
261-269
ISSN
  • 0266-4623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6348
OpenAlex
W2735409535
Cited by
20
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Technology Assessment and Management
Keywords
value assessment, drug reimbursement, health technology assessment, pharmaceutical policy, stakeholder engagement
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Drug Industry, Humans, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Drug Discovery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review