IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i6p3139-d519644.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value Frameworks: Adaptation of Korean Versions of Value Frameworks for Oncology

Author

Listed:
  • Green Bae

    (College of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea
    Both authors contributed equally.)

  • SeungJin Bae

    (College of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea
    Both authors contributed equally.)

  • Donghwan Lee

    (Department of Statistics, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea)

  • Juhee Han

    (College of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea)

  • Dong-Hoe Koo

    (Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 03063, Korea)

  • Do Yeun Kim

    (Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Seoul 10326, Korea)

  • Hee-Jun Kim

    (Division of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Seoul 06974, Korea)

  • Sung Young Oh

    (Department of Internal Medicine, Dong-A University Hospital, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan 49236, Korea)

  • Hee Yeon Lee

    (Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 07345, Korea)

  • Jong Hwan Lee

    (Department of Pharmaceutical Benefits, Health Insurance Review & Assessment, Wonju 26465, Korea)

  • Hye Sook Han

    (Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea)

  • Hyerim Ha

    (Division of Hematology & Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Inha University Hospital, Incheon 400 711, Korea)

  • Jin Hyoung Kang

    (Medical Oncology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 07345, Korea)

Abstract

This study sought to adapt the existing value framework (VF) to produce a reliable and valid Korean oncology VF. Two VFs developed by The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) were selected for examination in the present study. Forward and backward translations were conducted for six high-priced drugs indicated for non-small-cell lung cancer and multiple myeloma. Inter-rater reliability was measured based on the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and variation was described using the coefficient of variation. The relative weights of factors critically considered by Korean oncologists were derived following the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and focus group interviews (FGIs) were used to obtain qualitative data regarding the applications of these two VFs in the Korean setting. The ICCs of the Korean VFs were 0.895 (0.654–0.983) for ASCO and 0.726 (0–0.982) for ESMO translations, suggesting excellent reliability for ASCO and good reliability for ESMO. AHP demonstrated that clinical benefit has the highest priority, which is consistent with the ASCO VF. The FGIs suggested that the result for AHP is acceptable and that both ESMO and ASCO VFs should be used complementarily. Although further evaluation with a larger sample size is needed, the Korean versions of ESMO/ASCO VFs are valid and reliable tools and are acceptable to Korean stakeholders, yet they should be applied with caution.

Suggested Citation

  • Green Bae & SeungJin Bae & Donghwan Lee & Juhee Han & Dong-Hoe Koo & Do Yeun Kim & Hee-Jun Kim & Sung Young Oh & Hee Yeon Lee & Jong Hwan Lee & Hye Sook Han & Hyerim Ha & Jin Hyoung Kang, 2021. "Value Frameworks: Adaptation of Korean Versions of Value Frameworks for Oncology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-10, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:6:p:3139-:d:519644
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3139/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3139/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. SeungJin Bae & SooOk Lee & Eun Bae & Sunmee Jang, 2013. "Korean Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation (Second and Updated Version)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 257-267, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bae, Eun-Young & Hong, Ji-Min & Kwon, Hye-Young & Jang, Suhyun & Lee, Hye-Jae & Bae, SeungJin & Yang, Bong-Min, 2016. "Eight-year experience of using HTA in drug reimbursement: South Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(6), pages 612-620.
    2. Bae, Green & Bae, Eun Young & Bae, SeungJin, 2015. "Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 577-587.
    3. Gyeyoung Choi & Yujeong Kim & Gyeongseon Shin & SeungJin Bae, 2022. "Projecting Lifetime Health Outcomes and Costs Associated with the Ambient Fine Particulate Matter Exposure among Adult Women in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Jeewon Park & SeungJin Bae, 2020. "Modeling Healthcare Costs Attributable to Secondhand Smoke Exposure at Home among South Korean Children," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Jiryoun Gong & Juhee Han & Donghwan Lee & Seungjin Bae, 2020. "A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients’ Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Matthew Kennedy-Martin & Bernhard Slaap & Michael Herdman & Mandy Reenen & Tessa Kennedy-Martin & Wolfgang Greiner & Jan Busschbach & Kristina S. Boye, 2020. "Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1245-1257, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:6:p:3139-:d:519644. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.