Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35672735›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Under careful construction: combining findings, arguments, and values into robust health care coverage decisions.

T H Kleinhout-Vliek, A A De Bont, A Boer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

T H Kleinhout-VliekErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. vliek@eshpm.eur.nl.
A A De BontErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
A BoerErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care coverage decisions deal with health care technology provision or reimbursement at a national level. The coverage decision report, i.e., the publicly available document giving reasons for the decision, may contain various elements: quantitative calculations like cost and clinical effectiveness analyses and formalised and non-formalised qualitative considerations. We know little about the process of combining these heterogeneous elements into robust decisions.

methodsThis study describes a model for combining different elements in coverage decisions. We build on two qualitative cases of coverage appraisals at the Dutch National Health Care Institute, for which we analysed observations at committee meetings (n = 2, with field notes taken) and the corresponding audio files (n = 3), interviews with appraisal committee members (n = 10 in seven interviews) and with Institute employees (n = 5 in three interviews), and relevant documents (n = 4).

resultsWe conceptualise decisions as combinations of elements, specifically (quantitative) findings and (qualitative) arguments and values. Our model contains three steps: 1) identifying elements; 2) designing the combinations of elements, which entails articulating links, broadening the scope of designed combinations, and black-boxing links; and 3) testing these combinations and choosing one as the final decision.

conclusionsBased on the proposed model, we suggest actively identifying a wider variety of elements and stepping up in terms of engaging patients and the public, including facilitating appeals. Future research could explore how different actors perceive the robustness of decisions and how this relates to their perceived legitimacy.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyDelivery of Health CareAcademies and InstitutesHealth FacilitiesHumansExpertiseHealth Care CoverageHealth Care Decision-makingPatient and Public Involvement and EngagementRobustness

Identifiers

PMID35672735
PMCPMC9175321

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.