Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Health Professionals: How Do They Assess New Medicines?

  • Published:
Pharmacy World and Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To identify the types of information used by health professionals when assessing a new medicine, and to discover whether measures of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are understood and used.

Method: A cross-sectional survey of 56 health professionals was undertaken in a tertiary hospital in New Zealand. Respondents were consultants, registrars, house-surgeons, pharmacists, and specialist nurses

Main outcome measures: Health professionals’ opinions on clinical and cost information required for assessing a new medicine; their ability to calculate measures of risk; and their ability to define clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and types of economic analysis.

Results: Thirty-four percent of respondents considered journals and research to be the most accurate sources of information when assessing a new medicine. Efficacy, safety, contraindications and side-effects were the most important information sought. In total, 93% gave an acceptable definition of clinical effectiveness, and 38% of cost-effectiveness. The majority of each profession (except specialist nurses) could calculate relative risk reduction (RRR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) but fewer could calculate numbers needed to treat (NNT). Eighty-four percent of respondents felt that cost affected their assessment of a new medicine. Less than a quarter of respondents could define each type of economic analysis. Consultants and pharmacists appeared to have the best knowledge of economic analysis.

Conclusion: Efficacy, safety, contraindications and side-effects were the most important information sought when assessing a new medicine. Health professionals’ knowledge of clinical effectiveness was greater than their knowledge of cost-effectiveness. Consultants and pharmacists appeared to have the best knowledge of economic analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • R Segal S. Pathak (1988) ArticleTitleFormulary decision making: identifying factors that influence P&T Committee drug evaluations Hosp Formul 23 174–8 Occurrence Handle10286022

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LM Weekes C. Brooks (1996) ArticleTitleDrug and therapeutics committees in Australia: expected and actual performance Br J Clin Pharmacol 42 IssueID5 551–7 Occurrence Handle8951185

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Medicines Pharmacy and Industry Group and Nursing and Midwifery Policy Branch. (2003). Supplementary prescribing by nurses and pharmacists within the NHS in England. Department of Health: London, 1–67

  • S. Gentry (2001) Nurse Prescribing Regulations take effect. Media Release Ministry of Health Wellington

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon (1998) ArticleTitlePrescribing new drugs in general practice MeRec Bull 9 IssueID6 21–4

    Google Scholar 

  • P. McGettigan et al. (2001) ArticleTitlePrescribers prefer people. The sources of information used by doctors for prescribing suggest that the medium is more important than the message Br J Clin Pharmacol 51 184–9 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1365-2125.2001.01332.x Occurrence Handle11259994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MI Jones SM Greensfield CP. Bradley (2000) ArticleTitlePrescribing new drugs: qualitative study of influences on consultants and general practitioners BMJ 323 378–2 Occurrence Handle10.1136/bmj.323.7309.378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H Prosser A Solomon T. Walley (2003) ArticleTitleInfluences on GP’s decision to prescribe new drugs – the importance of who says what Fam Pract 20 IssueID1 61–8 Occurrence Handle10.1093/fampra/20.1.61 Occurrence Handle12509373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MY Peay ER. Peay (1984) ArticleTitleDifferences among practitioners in patterns of preference for information sources in the adoption of new drugs Soc Sci Med 18 1019–25 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0277-9536(84)90160-6 Occurrence Handle6463670

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • J Hall J Cantrill P. Noyce (2003) ArticleTitleThe information sources used by community nurse prescribers Br J Nurs 12 IssueID13 810–8 Occurrence Handle12920459

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • J Glanville M Haines I. Auston (1998) ArticleTitleFinding information on clinical effectiveness BMJ 317 200–3 Occurrence Handle9665910

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • W Rosenberg A. Donald (1995) ArticleTitleEvidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem-solving BMJ 310 1122–6 Occurrence Handle7742682

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • A Laupacis D Sackett R. Roberts (1996) ArticleTitleAn assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment N Engl J Med 318 IssueID26 1728–33

    Google Scholar 

  • JP McCormack M. Levine (1993) ArticleTitleMeaningful interpretation of risk reduction from clinical drug trials Ann Pharmacother 27 IssueID10 1272–7 Occurrence Handle8251698

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fahey T, Newton J. (1995). Conveying the benefits and risks of treatment. Br J Gen Pract (45): 339–41

  • RJ Cook DL. Sackett (1995) ArticleTitleThe number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect BMJ 310 452–4 Occurrence Handle7873954

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • M Cranney T. Walley (1996) ArticleTitleSame information, different decisions: The influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly Br J Gen Pract 46 661–3 Occurrence Handle8978112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DC Naylor E Chen B. Strauss (1992) ArticleTitleMeasured enthusiasm. Does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutics effectiveness? Ann Int Med 117 IssueID11 916–21 Occurrence Handle1443954

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • HC Bucher M Weinbacher K. Gyr (1994) ArticleTitleInfluence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration BMJ 309 761–5 Occurrence Handle7950558

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MDB Bobbio G. Giustetto (1994) ArticleTitleCompleteness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians willingness to prescribe Lancet 343 1209–11 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0140-6736(94)92407-4 Occurrence Handle7909875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • L Forrow WC Taylor RM. Arnold (1992) ArticleTitleAbsolutely relative: how research results are summarised can affect treatment decisions Am J Med 92 121–4 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0002-9343(92)90100-P Occurrence Handle1543193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • D Walzak S Swindells A. Bhardwaj (1994) ArticleTitlePrimary Care physicians and the cost of drugs: a study of prescribing practices based on recognition of information sources J Clin Pharmacol 34 1159–63 Occurrence Handle7738210

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • S Reichert T Simon EA. Halm (2000) ArticleTitlePhysicians’ attitudes about prescribing and knowledge of the costs of common medications Arch Intern Med 160 2799–803 Occurrence Handle10.1001/archinte.160.18.2799 Occurrence Handle11025790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • M Drummond J Cooke T. Walley (1997) ArticleTitleEconomic evaluation under managed competition: evidence from the UK Soc Sci Med 45 IssueID4 583–95 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00398-X Occurrence Handle9226783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • C Hoffmann et al. (2002) ArticleTitleDo health-care decision makers find economic evaluations useful? The findings of focus group research in UK health authorities Value Health 5 IssueID2 71–8 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1524-4733.2002.52109.x Occurrence Handle11918822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • FT Odedina et al. (2002) ArticleTitleUse of pharmacoeconomic data in making hospital formulary decisions Am J Health Syst Pharm 59 IssueID15 1441–4 Occurrence Handle12166044

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tordoff J et al. Processes for the assessment of new medicines in New Zealand hospitals. Annual Scientific Meeting, 2003. Sydney: Australasian Society of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacologists and Toxicologists

  • G. Kobelt (2002) Health economics: An introduction to economic evaluation EditionNumber2 Office of Health Economics London

    Google Scholar 

  • MF Drummond et al. (1996) Methods for the economic evaluation of health programmes EditionNumber2 Oxford University Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis. 1999. Available at http://www. pharmac.govt.nz/pdf (accessed on 5.12.03)

  • Australian Department of Health Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia, 1922

  • R Elliott K Payne J. Silcock (1996) ArticleTitleHealth economics – do or be done by Pharm J 257 832

    Google Scholar 

  • NA. Barber (1986) ArticleTitlePharmacists’ guide to statistics Br J Pharm Pract 8 354–7

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lecturer, School of Pharmacy, University of Otago, New Zealand

    June Tordoff

  2. Undergraduate Pharmacy students (4th year), University of Otago, New Zealand

    Rebecca Cheng, Kirsty Cook, Sarah Dowman, Rebecca Lawn, Jemma Leary, Taryn Quinn, Kim Schroder & Nicola Smith

Authors
  1. Rebecca Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kirsty Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah Dowman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rebecca Lawn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jemma Leary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Taryn Quinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kim Schroder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nicola Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. June Tordoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to June Tordoff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cheng, R., Cook, K., Dowman, S. et al. Health Professionals: How Do They Assess New Medicines?. Pharm World Sci 27, 236–242 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-004-3706-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-004-3706-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation