| Title |
Defining and Measuring the Affordability of New Medicines: A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-017-0514-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fernando Antoñanzas, Robert Terkola, Paul M. Overton, Natalie Shalet, Maarten Postma |
| Abstract |
In many healthcare systems, affordability concerns can lead to restrictions on the use of expensive efficacious therapies. However, there does not appear to be any consensus as to the terminology used to describe affordability, or the thresholds used to determine whether new drugs are affordable. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate how affordability is defined and measured in healthcare. MEDLINE, EMBASE and EconLit databases (2005-July 2016) were searched using terms covering affordability and budget impact, combined with definitions, thresholds and restrictions, to identify articles describing a definition of affordability with respect to new medicines. Additional definitions were identified through citation searching, and through manual searches of European health technology assessment body websites. In total, 27 definitions were included in the review. Of these, five definitions described affordability in terms of the value of a product; seven considered affordability within the context of healthcare system budgets; and 15 addressed whether products are affordable in a given country based on economic factors. However, there was little in the literature to indicate that the price of medicines is considered alongside both their value to individual patients and their budget impact at a population level. Current methods of assessing affordability in healthcare may be limited by their focus on budget impact. A more effective approach may involve a broader perspective than is currently described in the literature, to consider the long-term benefits of a therapy and cost savings elsewhere in the healthcare system, as well as cooperation between healthcare payers and the pharmaceutical industry to develop financing models that support sustainability as well as innovation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 31% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 62% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 15% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 July 2021.
All research outputs
#3,419,443
of 23,798,792 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#349
of 1,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,379
of 312,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,798,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 312,134 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.