Skip to content

"What's fair to an individual is not always fair to a population": a qualitative study of patients and their health professionals using the Cancer Drugs Fund

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{3819d3522e264feebcf0e8a53447e7ac,
title = "{"}What's fair to an individual is not always fair to a population{"}: a qualitative study of patients and their health professionals using the Cancer Drugs Fund",
abstract = "ObjectiveTo understand the values attached to cancer treatment at the end of life(EoL) to inform policy decisions around the Cancer Drugs Fund(CDF) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence(NICE) EoL criterion.DesignSemi-structured interviews with patients and health professionals.Purposive recruitment was performed iteratively alongside analysis of interview transcripts using constant comparison.ParticipantsPatients with incurable prostate and colorectal cancer(n=22) who received drugs funded through the CDF and oncologists and palliative care professionals(n=16) treating patients on CDF drugs.ResultsWhile the majority of patient and oncologist participants expressed gratitude for access to the CDF, some patient participants reported experiencing a sense of guilt, and many oncologists admitted to concern about the justice of a ring-fenced fund solely for anti-cancer drugs. For patient and professional participants, cancer drugs were not necessarily seen as a funding priority over other calls on the NHS purse. Overall, patients and health professionals emphasised prioritising quality over quantity at the end of life, with only a minority describing improved quality of life at the end of life which added value. ConclusionWhile patients and oncologists appreciated the drugs available through the CDF, most expressed concern about its fairness. Competing participant views about the added value of the end of life is challenging for resource allocation.",
keywords = "NICE, Cancer Drugs Fund, qualitative methods, Resource Allocation",
author = "Charlotte Chamberlain and William Hollingworth and Amanda Owen-Smith and Jenny Donovan and Fiona MacKichan",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.05.022",
language = "English",
journal = "Health Policy",
issn = "0168-8510",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS - suitable for import to EndNote

TY - JOUR

T1 - "What's fair to an individual is not always fair to a population"

T2 - a qualitative study of patients and their health professionals using the Cancer Drugs Fund

AU - Chamberlain, Charlotte

AU - Hollingworth, William

AU - Owen-Smith, Amanda

AU - Donovan, Jenny

AU - MacKichan, Fiona

PY - 2019/6/21

Y1 - 2019/6/21

N2 - ObjectiveTo understand the values attached to cancer treatment at the end of life(EoL) to inform policy decisions around the Cancer Drugs Fund(CDF) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence(NICE) EoL criterion.DesignSemi-structured interviews with patients and health professionals.Purposive recruitment was performed iteratively alongside analysis of interview transcripts using constant comparison.ParticipantsPatients with incurable prostate and colorectal cancer(n=22) who received drugs funded through the CDF and oncologists and palliative care professionals(n=16) treating patients on CDF drugs.ResultsWhile the majority of patient and oncologist participants expressed gratitude for access to the CDF, some patient participants reported experiencing a sense of guilt, and many oncologists admitted to concern about the justice of a ring-fenced fund solely for anti-cancer drugs. For patient and professional participants, cancer drugs were not necessarily seen as a funding priority over other calls on the NHS purse. Overall, patients and health professionals emphasised prioritising quality over quantity at the end of life, with only a minority describing improved quality of life at the end of life which added value. ConclusionWhile patients and oncologists appreciated the drugs available through the CDF, most expressed concern about its fairness. Competing participant views about the added value of the end of life is challenging for resource allocation.

AB - ObjectiveTo understand the values attached to cancer treatment at the end of life(EoL) to inform policy decisions around the Cancer Drugs Fund(CDF) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence(NICE) EoL criterion.DesignSemi-structured interviews with patients and health professionals.Purposive recruitment was performed iteratively alongside analysis of interview transcripts using constant comparison.ParticipantsPatients with incurable prostate and colorectal cancer(n=22) who received drugs funded through the CDF and oncologists and palliative care professionals(n=16) treating patients on CDF drugs.ResultsWhile the majority of patient and oncologist participants expressed gratitude for access to the CDF, some patient participants reported experiencing a sense of guilt, and many oncologists admitted to concern about the justice of a ring-fenced fund solely for anti-cancer drugs. For patient and professional participants, cancer drugs were not necessarily seen as a funding priority over other calls on the NHS purse. Overall, patients and health professionals emphasised prioritising quality over quantity at the end of life, with only a minority describing improved quality of life at the end of life which added value. ConclusionWhile patients and oncologists appreciated the drugs available through the CDF, most expressed concern about its fairness. Competing participant views about the added value of the end of life is challenging for resource allocation.

KW - NICE

KW - Cancer Drugs Fund

KW - qualitative methods

KW - Resource Allocation

U2 - 10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.05.022

DO - 10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.05.022

M3 - Article

C2 - 31279588

JO - Health Policy

JF - Health Policy

SN - 0168-8510

ER -