↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Targeting improved patient outcomes using innovative product listing agreements: a survey of Canadian and international key opinion leaders

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Targeting improved patient outcomes using innovative product listing agreements: a survey of Canadian and international key opinion leaders
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, August 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s96616
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa Thompson, Chris Henshall, Louis P Garrison, Adrian D Griffin, Doug Coyle, Stephen Long, Zayna A Khayat, Dana L Anger, Rebecca Yu

Abstract

To address the uncertainty associated with procuring pharmaceutical products, product listing agreements (PLAs) are increasingly being used to support responsible funding decisions in Canada and elsewhere. These agreements typically involve financial-based rebating initiatives or, less frequently, outcome-based contracts. A qualitative survey was conducted to improve the understanding of outcome-based and more innovative PLAs (IPLAs) based on input from Canadian and international key opinion leaders in the areas of drug manufacturing and reimbursement. Results from a structured literature review were used to inform survey development. Potential participants were invited via email to partake in the survey, which was conducted over phone or in person. Responses were compiled anonymously for review and reporting. Twenty-one individuals participated in the survey, including health technology assessment (HTA) key opinion leaders (38%), pharmaceutical industry chief executive officers/vice presidents (29%), ex-payers (19%), and current payers/drug plan managers/HTA (14%). The participants suggested that ~80%-95% of Canadian PLAs are financial-based rather than outcomes-based. They indicated that IPLAs offer important benefits to patients, payers, and manufacturers; however, several challenges limit their use (eg, administrative burden, lack of agreed-upon endpoint). They noted that IPLAs are useful in rapidly evolving therapeutic areas and those associated with high unmet need, a quantifiable endpoint, and/or robust data systems. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, and other arms-length organizations could play important roles in identifying uncertainty and endpoints and brokering pan-Canadian PLAs. Industry should work collaboratively with payers to identify uncertainty and develop innovative mechanisms to address it. The survey results indicated that while challenging, use of IPLAs may be associated with various benefits. Collaboration among stakeholders remains key: Canadian agencies could play an important role in the success of these agreements, while industry should be proactive in offering solutions that will help improve outcomes across the entire health care system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Other 3 5%
Lecturer 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 23 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 8%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 20 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,236,093
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#144
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,759
of 381,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#5
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.