Funding new cancer drugs in Ontario: closing the loop in the practice guidelines development cycle
- PMID: 11454887
- DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.14.3392
Funding new cancer drugs in Ontario: closing the loop in the practice guidelines development cycle
Abstract
Purpose: The previously described practice guidelines development cycle follows an iterative model in which recommendations are reached by a process that incorporates practitioners at all phases. A key feature is the separation of the evidence-based systematic review and the generation of recommendations from policy decisions surrounding implementation. This article describes how this implementation phase has evolved in Ontario and how implementation has affected the guidelines process.
Methods: The development of the New Drug Funding Program in Ontario and the appointment of a policy advisory committee (PAC) to make funding recommendations were reviewed. The decision-making framework of the PAC is described in this article.
Results: The PAC has had to address a number of issues in making funding recommendations. These issues have included dealing with evidence arising solely from phase II versus phase III trials, using economic information, and involving community representatives in its deliberations. Its activities have had a substantial impact on the practice guidelines initiative.
Conclusion: It is possible to integrate an evidence-based, practitioner-driven approach to clinical guideline development with a funding program that takes policy considerations into account. However, even though these two roles are conceptually separate, the needs of the funding program have inevitably had an impact on the guidelines process.
Similar articles
-
Progress of clinical oncology guidelines development using the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle: the role of practitioner feedback.J Clin Oncol. 1998 Mar;16(3):1226-31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.3.1226. J Clin Oncol. 1998. PMID: 9508211
-
The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation.J Clin Oncol. 1995 Feb;13(2):502-12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1995.13.2.502. J Clin Oncol. 1995. PMID: 7844612
-
The Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative.Oncology (Williston Park). 1996 Nov;10(11 Suppl):19-22. Oncology (Williston Park). 1996. PMID: 8953591
-
Guideline funding and conflicts of interest: article 4 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report.Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012 Dec;9(5):234-42. doi: 10.1513/pats.201208-057ST. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012. PMID: 23256165 Review.
-
Policy and procedure development: a novel approach.ORL Head Neck Nurs. 2008 Spring;26(2):18-22. ORL Head Neck Nurs. 2008. PMID: 18557118 Review.
Cited by
-
6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs.J Oncol Pract. 2008 Jan;4(1):2-7. doi: 10.1200/JOP.0812001. J Oncol Pract. 2008. PMID: 20859436 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating the role of quality assessment of primary studies in systematic reviews of cancer practice guidelines.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Feb 16;5(1):8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-8. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005. PMID: 15715916 Free PMC article.
-
Alignment of practice guidelines with targeted-therapy drug funding policies in Ontario.Curr Oncol. 2013 Feb;20(1):e21-33. doi: 10.3747/co.20.1166. Curr Oncol. 2013. PMID: 23444033 Free PMC article.
-
Can surveying practitioners about their practices help identify priority clinical practice guideline topics?BMC Health Serv Res. 2003 Dec 19;3(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-3-23. BMC Health Serv Res. 2003. PMID: 14687426 Free PMC article.
-
The effect of priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs on medical oncologists' practice in Ontario: a qualitative study.BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Nov 28;7:193. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-193. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007. PMID: 18042302 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources