↓ Skip to main content

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00214
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgi Iskrov, Tsonka Miteva-Katrandzhieva, Rumen Stefanov

Abstract

Limited resources and expanding expectations push all countries and types of health systems to adopt new approaches in priority setting and resources allocation. Despite best efforts, it is difficult to reconcile all competing interests, and trade-offs are inevitable. This is why multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has played a major role in recent uptake of value-based reimbursement. MCDA framework enables exploration of stakeholders' preferences, as well as explicit organization of broad range of criteria on which real-world decisions are made. Assessment and appraisal of orphan drugs tend to be one of the most complicated health technology assessment (HTA) tasks. Access to market approved orphan therapies remains an issue. Early constructive dialog among rare disease stakeholders and elaboration of orphan drug-tailored decision support tools could set the scene for ongoing accumulation of evidence, as well as for proper reimbursement decision-making. The objective of this study was to create an MCDA value measurement model to assess and appraise orphan drugs. This was achieved by exploring the preferences on decision criteria's weights and performance scores through a stakeholder-representative survey and a focus group discussion that were both organized in Bulgaria. Decision criteria that describe the health technology's characteristics were unanimously agreed as the most important group of reimbursement considerations. This outcome, combined with the high individual weight of disease severity and disease burden criteria, underlined some of the fundamental principles of health care - equity and fairness. Our study proved that strength of evidence may be a key criterion in orphan drug assessment and appraisal. Evidence is used not only to shape reimbursement decision-making but also to lend legitimacy to policies pursued. The need for real-world data on orphan drugs was largely stressed. Improved knowledge on MCDA feasibility and integration to HTA is of paramount importance, as progress in medicine and innovative health technologies should correspond to patient, health-care system, and societal values.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Unknown 141 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 17%
Student > Master 20 14%
Other 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 46 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 13%
Social Sciences 11 8%
Engineering 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 49 34%
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 25 August 2022.
All research outputs
#6,142,795
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,950
of 9,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,964
of 322,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#19
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,794 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 322,280 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.