The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Portrait of Anders Anell. Photo.

Anders Anell

Professor

Portrait of Anders Anell. Photo.

Pharmacoeconomics and clinical practice guidelines : A survey of attitudes in Swedish formulary committees

Author

  • Anders Anell
  • Patrick Svarvar

Summary, in English

Background: Swedish formulary committees are expected to influence prescribing practice by establishing and issuing drug lists and clinical practice guidelines, particularly now that financial responsibility for prescription drugs has been transferred from the national to the county council level. Objective: The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify the information sources and decision criteria that individual committee members perceive as important in establishing clinical practice guidelines. Moreover, obstacles to the increased use of pharmacoeconomic evaluations in decision-making were also identified. Design and setting: Data were gathered through a survey questionnaire administered in 1998 to members of central formulary committees throughout Sweden, as determined by a national register. Participants: 312 members of central formulary committees, of whom 69% responded. Results: Treatment policies/guidelines supplied by government authorities, or found in reviewed journals, are considered the most important sources of information, and criteria associated with costs and effects are considered the most important decision criteria. The members' years of experience and their professions affect their assessments of information sources, whereas education in health economics affects their assessments of decision criteria. Committee members voiced an interest in pharmacoeconomic issues, but warned that there was neither sufficient competence among committee members nor an adequate supply of relevant studies. Furthermore, a majority of the members identified difficulty in translating study results into clinical practice guidelines and limited possibilities in comparing studies as obstacles to the increased use of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Conclusions: The results of this survey may be useful in designing future economic evaluations and when presenting and diffusing study results.

Publishing year

2000-02-17

Language

English

Pages

175-185

Publication/Series

PharmacoEconomics

Volume

17

Issue

2

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Adis International

Topic

  • Business Administration

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1170-7690