↓ Skip to main content

Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
Title
Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40273-015-0340-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monika Wagner, Hanane Khoury, Jacob Willet, Donna Rindress, Mireille Goetghebeur

Abstract

The multiplicity of issues, including uncertainty and ethical dilemmas, and policies involved in appraising interventions for rare diseases suggests that multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) based on a holistic definition of value is uniquely suited for this purpose. The objective of this study was to analyze and further develop a comprehensive MCDA framework (EVIDEM) to address rare disease issues and policies, while maintaining its applicability across disease areas. Specific issues and policies for rare diseases were identified through literature review. Ethical and methodological foundations of the EVIDEM framework v3.0 were systematically analyzed from the perspective of these issues, and policies and modifications of the framework were performed accordingly to ensure their integration. Analysis showed that the framework integrates ethical dilemmas and issues inherent to appraising interventions for rare diseases but required further integration of specific aspects. Modification thus included the addition of subcriteria to further differentiate disease severity, disease-specific treatment outcomes, and economic consequences of interventions for rare diseases. Scoring scales were further developed to include negative scales for all comparative criteria. A methodology was established to incorporate context-specific population priorities and policies, such as those for rare diseases, into the quantitative part of the framework. This design allows making more explicit trade-offs between competing ethical positions of fairness (prioritization of those who are worst off), the goal of benefiting as many people as possible, the imperative to help, and wise use of knowledge and resources. It also allows addressing variability in institutional policies regarding prioritization of specific disease areas, in addition to existing uncertainty analysis available from EVIDEM. The adapted framework measures value in its widest sense, while being responsive to rare disease issues and policies. It provides an operationalizable platform to integrate values, competing ethical dilemmas, and uncertainty in appraising healthcare interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 124 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Master 18 14%
Other 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 32 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 26%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 37 30%
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 10 November 2015.
All research outputs
#5,975,595
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#655
of 1,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,222
of 285,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#14
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 285,879 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.