What constitutes evidence in hospital new drug decision making?
In National Health Service hospitals in the UK the introduction of new drugs is controlled by a local Drug and Therapeutics Committee (DTC), which is expected to apply the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM). In the light of growing expenditure on drugs, there is interest in how the decisions are made that lead to the local acceptance or rejection of a new drug. In this study the DTCs of two general hospitals were observed, tape-recorded and analysed to determine what was considered as evidence and how it was used in decision making. Evidence, as constituted by DTC members, was issues that affected the decision-making process and included: clinical trial data, cost, pre-existing prescribing of the drug, pharmaceutical company activities, decisions of other DTCs, patient demand, clinician excitement, and personality of the applicant. Debate usually started with a discussion of the scientific evidence, then the cost would be considered. Often this evidence was either inadequate or insufficient enough for a locally implementable decision and further types of evidence would be brought in to try and estimate the likely impact of adopting the new drug. EBM, while used in decision making, was supplemented by local knowledge, although decisions were accounted for in the language of scientific rationality. Both abstract scientific rationality and the local rationality of practical healthcare provision were present in the decisions of the DTCs on the adoption, or otherwise, of new drugs into local formularies and healthcare. We suggest the coming together of local and abstract in local decision-making needs to be taken into account when formulating policy and providing decision support.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 58 (2004)
Issue (Month): 9 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:9:p:1757-1766. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.