↓ Skip to main content

Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2561-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liz Morrell, Sarah Wordsworth, Howell Fu, Sian Rees, Richard Barker

Abstract

The Scottish Medicines Consortium evaluates new drugs for use in the National Health Service in Scotland. Reforms in 2014 to their evaluation process aimed to increase patient access to new drugs for end-of-life or rare conditions; the changes include additional steps in the process to gain further information from patients and clinicians, and for revised commercial agreements. This study examines the extent of any impact of the reforms on funding decisions. Data on the Scottish Medicines Consortium's funding decisions during 24 months post-reform were extracted from published Advice, for descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Comparison data were extracted for the 24 months pre-reform. Data on decisions for England by the National Institute for Clinical and Health Excellence for the same drugs were extracted from published Technology Appraisals. The new process was used by 90% (53/59) of cancer submissions. It is triggered if the initial advice is not to recommend, and this risk-of-rejection level is higher than in the pre-period. Thirty-eight cancer drugs obtained some level of funding through the new process, but there was no significant difference in the distribution of decision types compared to the pre-reform period. Thematic analysis of patient and clinician input showed no clear relationship between issues raised and funding decision. Differences between SMC's and NICE's definitions of End-of-Life did not fully explain differences in funding decisions. The Scottish Medicines Consortium's reforms have allowed funding of up to 38 cancer drugs that might previously have been rejected. However, the contribution of specific elements of the reforms to the final decision is unclear. The process could be improved by increased transparency in how the non-quantitative inputs influence decisions. Some disparities in funding decisions between England and Scotland are likely to remain despite recent process convergence.

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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Other 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Unspecified 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 20 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,931,785
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,308
of 7,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,241
of 317,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#98
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 317,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.