IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i16p5961-d400192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Patients and Doctors Perceive Medical Services for Rare Diseases Differently in China? Insights from Two National Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Shiwei Gong

    (Department of Pharmacy Business and Administration, School of Pharmacy, Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Dehe Li

    (Department of Pharmacy Business and Administration, School of Pharmacy, Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Dong Dong

    (JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
    Shenzhen Research Institute of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen 518057, China)

Abstract

Background : Increasing attention is being paid to improve the quality of life of patients with rare diseases in China. However, we are currently unaware of the problems encountered in the medical services of rare diseases from the viewpoints of doctors and patients. This study addressed the differences in the perceived barriers of diagnosis and treatments for rare diseases between doctors and patients in China. Methods : Two independent cross-sectional surveys on the perception of Chinese doctors’ and patients’ experiences with rare diseases were launched online between January and February 2018. A non-probability, convenience sampling method was employed to recruit participants. Results: In all, 45 rare diseases were reported by 139 doctors and 1853 patients. Patients with rare diseases faced significantly more difficulties in receiving accurate diagnosis (72.0%) and accessing information related to diagnosis and treatment (77.3%) as compared with doctors (34.5% and 40.3%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Specially, patients felt more difficulties than doctors in obtaining sustainable treatment for rare diseases (84.3% vs. 49.6%, p < 0.001). A higher percentage of patients (58.7%) than that of doctors (39.1%) had concerns in terms of the affordability of drugs. Further, 66.3% patients claimed that the drugs used to treat their conditions were not covered by their current medical insurances, whereas only 21.6% for doctors ( p < 0.0001). Moreover, 35.3% of doctors responded that they recommended patients to visit the specialist they knew or were acquainted with, whereas 30.0% of patients said that their doctors chose to treat them based on their past experiences ( p < 0.001). Conclusion : The perceived experience of patients with regard to diagnosis and treatment was significantly different from that of doctors. An integrated medical service platform should be established to facilitate better communication and mutual understanding of rare diseases between patients and doctors.

Suggested Citation

  • Shiwei Gong & Dehe Li & Dong Dong, 2020. "How Do Patients and Doctors Perceive Medical Services for Rare Diseases Differently in China? Insights from Two National Surveys," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-14, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:16:p:5961-:d:400192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/16/5961/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/16/5961/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Todd Gammie & Christine Y Lu & Zaheer Ud-Din Babar, 2015. "Access to Orphan Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Legislations, Regulations and Policies in 35 Countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.
    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. Nicholas Bagley & Benjamin Berger & Amitabh Chandra & Craig Garthwaite & Ariel D. Stern, 2018. "The Orphan Drug Act at 35: Observations and an Outlook for the Twenty-First Century," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 19, pages 97-137, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Jason C Hsu & Huai-Chueh Wu & Wen-Chia Feng & Chih-Ho Chou & Edward Chia-Cheng Lai & Christine Y Lu, 2018. "Disease and economic burden for rare diseases in Taiwan: A longitudinal study using Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Norah L. Crossnohere & Ryan Fischer & Andrew Lloyd & Lisa A. Prosser & John F. P. Bridges, 2021. "Assessing the Appropriateness of the EQ-5D for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A Patient-Centered Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 209-221, February.
    4. Dyfrig A Hughes & Jannine Poletti-Hughes, 2016. "Profitability and Market Value of Orphan Drug Companies: A Retrospective, Propensity-Matched Case-Control Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
    5. Samira Guennif, 2022. "Capture and passive predation in times of COVID-19 pandemic," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 163-186, December.
    6. Erik Landfeldt & Josefin Edström & Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno & Baziel G. M. Engelen & Janbernd Kirschner & Hanns Lochmüller, 2019. "Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Adult-Onset Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(4), pages 365-373, August.
    7. Degtiar, Irina, 2017. "A review of international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1240-1248.
    8. Fontrier, Anna-Maria, 2022. "Market access for medicines treating rare diseases: Association between specialised processes for orphan medicines and funding recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    9. Pejcic, Ana V. & Iskrov, Georgi & Jakovljevic, Mihajlo Michael & Stefanov, Rumen, 2018. "Access to orphan drugs – comparison across Balkan countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 583-589.
    10. Se Hee Lee & Seung-Lai Yoo & Joon Seok Bang & Jong Hyuk Lee, 2020. "Patient Accessibility and Budget Impact of Orphan Drugs in South Korea: Long-Term and Real-World Data Analysis (2007–2019)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-8, April.
    11. Ria Christine Siagian & Dumilah Ayuningtyas, 2019. "Gap analysis for drug development policy-making: An attempt to close the gap between policy and its implementation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-13, August.
    12. Torrent-Farnell, J. & Comellas, M. & Poveda, J.L. & Abaitua, I. & Gutiérrez-Solana, L.G. & Pérez-López, J. & Cruz, J. & Urcelay, J. & Lizán, L., 2018. "The view of experts on initiatives to be undertaken to promote equity in the access to orphan drugs and specialised care for rare diseases in Spain: A Delphi consensus," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 590-598.
    13. Marialuisa Saviano & Sergio Barile & Francesco Caputo & Mattia Lettieri & Stefania Zanda, 2019. "From Rare to Neglected Diseases: A Sustainable and Inclusive Healthcare Perspective for Reframing the Orphan Drugs Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, March.

    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:17:y:2020:i:16:p:5961-:d:400192. 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.