↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Evolution of health technology assessment: best practices of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 298)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Evolution of health technology assessment: best practices of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s82549
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabelle Chabot, Angela Rocchi, Judith Glennie

Abstract

In 2007, Canada chose to develop a separate and distinct path for oncology drug health technology assessment (HTA). In 2013, the decision was made to transfer the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), to align the pCODR and CADTH Common Drug Review processes while building on the best practices of both. The objective of this research was to conduct an examination of the best practices established by the pCODR. A qualitative research approach was taken to assess the policies, processes, and practices of the pCODR, based on internationally accepted best practice "principles" in HTA, with a particular focus on stakeholder engagement. Publicly available information regarding the approach of the pCODR was used to gauge the agency's performance against these principles. In addition, stakeholder observations and real-world experiences were gathered through key informant interviews to be inclusive of perspectives from patient advocacy groups, provincial and/or cancer agency decision-makers, community and academic oncologists, industry, expert committee members, and health economists. This analysis indicated that, through the pCODR, oncology stakeholders have had a voice in and have come to trust the quality and relevance of oncology HTA as a vital tool to ensure the best decisions for Canadians with cancer and their health care system. It could be expected that adoption of the principles and processes of the pCODR would bring a similar level of engagement and trust to other HTA organizations in Canada and elsewhere. The results of this research led to recommendations for improvement and potential extrapolation of these best practices to other HTA organizations worldwide, along with suggestions for continued evolution of the pCODR in conjunction with its integration into the CADTH. It is clear that the transition of the pCODR to CADTH provides an opportunity for practices initiated by the pCODR to become the standard for these newly amalgamated HTA agencies in Canada.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 32%
Other 4 21%
Librarian 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 47%
Social Sciences 3 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Other 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 22 June 2015.
All research outputs
#752,251
of 9,252,245 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#14
of 298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,984
of 225,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,252,245 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 225,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.