Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 135–144 | Cite as

The introduction of pharmacoeconomic analysis in Norway ― are the users prepared?

  • Elisabeth Moen Rørvik
  • Else-Lydia Toverud
  • Lars. Walløe


Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate existing perceptions and knowledge of pharmacoeconomic analyses, and attitudes towards them, among personnel from the pharmaceutical authorities and the pharmaceutical industry in Norway who work with medicines in various capacities, and to investigate whether there were evident differences between the two groups.Method: Personal interviews were conducted with 33 employees from the public authorities and 46 from the pharmaceutical industry, using a semi‐structured questionnaire. This focused on knowledge of and attitudes towards pharmacoeconomics.Main outcome measure: A factor analysis conducted on questions related to attitude.Results: The factor analysis showed that the employees from the public authorities were significantly more positive to the introduction and use of pharmacoeconomic analyses than those from the industry, and they were less sceptical about how well prepared or receptive the market is. In addition the informants from both groups had a relatively good understanding of the terms most commonly used in the field of pharmacoeconomics. They were also aware of some of the costs and outcomes involved in the analyses. Conclusion:If the groups interviewed are to become more involved in actual decision‐making on the basis of pharmacoeconomic analyses, they need more training to gain the necessary in‐depth knowledge, since their knowledge of the field was somewhat superficial.

Attitudes Factor analysis Interview Knowledge Norway Pharmaceutical industry Pharmacoeconomic analysis Public authorities 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Drummond M F, O'Brien B, Stoddart G L, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, Second Edition.Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Statens legemiddelkontroll. Forslag til norske retningslinjer for legemiddeløkonomiske analyser i forbindelse med søknad om refusjon på blåresept, 31.07.98.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grund J, Husbyn H. Økonomisk evaluering av legemidler, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moen E, Toverud E-L, Grund J, et al. Pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals. A new culture for the community pharmacist, Pharm World Sci 1998;20(3):107-12.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sosialdepartementet. Helsepolitikken mot år 2000: nasjonal helseplan. Stortingsmelding nummer 41 (1987-1988), Oslo: Sosialdepartementet, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sosial-og helsedepartementet. Samarbeid og styring: mål og virkemidler for en bedre helsetjeneste, Stortingsmelding nummer 50 (1993-94). Oslo: Sosial-og helsedepartementet, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Norges offentlige utredninger (NOU). Rammevilkår for omsetning av legemidler, NOU 1997:6. Oslo: Statens forvaltningssteneste, Statens trykking, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Norges offentlige utredninger (NOU). Piller, prioritering og politikk. Hva slags refusjonsordning trenger pasienter og samfunn? NOU 1997: 7. Oslo: Statens forvaltningssteneste, Statens trykking, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sosial-og helsedepartementet. Forskrift om stønad av utgifter til viktige legemidler og spesielt medisinsk utstyr. Sosialog helsedepartementet, 18. april 1997Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frøyshov AO. The reference price system – an update. Nytt om legemidler 1998;21:60-2.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grund J. The Societal value of pharmaceuticals. Balancing industrial and healthcare policy. PharmacoEconomics 1996 Jul;10(1):14-22.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bryman A, Cramer D. Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for Windows, Routledge, London 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobs P, Bachynsky J, Baladi J-F. A Comparative review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8(3):182-9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baladi J-F, Menon D, Otten N. Use of economic evaluation guidelines: 2 years' experience in Canada, Health Econ 1998; 7:221-7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 1st ed. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pashos CL, Klein EG, Wanke LA. ISPOR Lexicon. Princeton, NJ, USA: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kozma CM, Reeder CE, Schulz RM. Economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes: a planning model for pharmacoeconomic research. Clinical Therapeutics, Vol. 15, NO. 6, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grund J, Husbyn H. The Role of Pharmacoeconomics in Health Policy and Management in Norway. Pharmacoeconomics 1995;7(6):475-83.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Drummond MF. Australian guidelines for cost-effectiveness studies of pharmaceuticals; the thin end of the boomerang? PharmacoEconomics 1992;1Suppl. 1:61-9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Moen Rørvik
    • 1
  • Else-Lydia Toverud
    • 1
  • Lars. Walløe
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Social Pharmacy, School of PharmacyUniversity of OsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Physiology, Institute of Basic Medical SciencesUniversity of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations