Evidentiary Standards for Patient-Centered Core Impact (PC-CIS) Value Claims.

Paul C Langley
{"title":"Evidentiary Standards for Patient-Centered Core Impact (PC-CIS) Value Claims.","authors":"Paul C Langley","doi":"10.24926/iip.v13i3.5016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Proposals for a patient centered core impact set (PC-CIS) are of little relevance to formulary and health system decisions, let alone patients and providers, unless the elements included in the data set meet the standards of normal science and fundamental measurement. Adhering to these standards will have the effect of focusing on the adequacy of proposed core impact measures, with a filter in place to accept only those that meet the standards not only of the physical sciences but also mainstream economics. and health economics. Fortunately, we are well aware of what the criteria for acceptance and rejection of the core impacts within disease states should be in terms of their required attributes and their relevance for supporting evaluable value claims, notably for patient reported outcomes, Rasch or modern measurement theory. Care must be taken to delineate the core impact elements: separately identifying those that are purely clinical from core patient centric impacts, which is turn should be separated from impacts defined in terms of drug utilization and resource utilization. The purpose of this brief commentary is to set out the required standards for core impact patient-centric value claims and the framework for evaluating those claims. The critical issue for patient-centered core impacts is to recognize the constraints imposed by the standards of fundamental measurement for target patient populations within disease areas; unless these constraints are recognized we will fail. The leads to the role of Rasch or modern measurement theory calibration as the framework for patient centric measures of latent traits or attributes. From these perspectives PC-CIS is premature; until we have agreed standards for measurement for the impact or outcomes for clinical, patient-centric and resource utilization as a core set of disease specific instruments, it seems pointless to push forward to a wider scope when the present evidentiary foundation is so weak.</p>","PeriodicalId":13646,"journal":{"name":"Innovations in Pharmacy","volume":"13 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/62/43/21550417-13-03-5016.PMC9815867.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovations in Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v13i3.5016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Proposals for a patient centered core impact set (PC-CIS) are of little relevance to formulary and health system decisions, let alone patients and providers, unless the elements included in the data set meet the standards of normal science and fundamental measurement. Adhering to these standards will have the effect of focusing on the adequacy of proposed core impact measures, with a filter in place to accept only those that meet the standards not only of the physical sciences but also mainstream economics. and health economics. Fortunately, we are well aware of what the criteria for acceptance and rejection of the core impacts within disease states should be in terms of their required attributes and their relevance for supporting evaluable value claims, notably for patient reported outcomes, Rasch or modern measurement theory. Care must be taken to delineate the core impact elements: separately identifying those that are purely clinical from core patient centric impacts, which is turn should be separated from impacts defined in terms of drug utilization and resource utilization. The purpose of this brief commentary is to set out the required standards for core impact patient-centric value claims and the framework for evaluating those claims. The critical issue for patient-centered core impacts is to recognize the constraints imposed by the standards of fundamental measurement for target patient populations within disease areas; unless these constraints are recognized we will fail. The leads to the role of Rasch or modern measurement theory calibration as the framework for patient centric measures of latent traits or attributes. From these perspectives PC-CIS is premature; until we have agreed standards for measurement for the impact or outcomes for clinical, patient-centric and resource utilization as a core set of disease specific instruments, it seems pointless to push forward to a wider scope when the present evidentiary foundation is so weak.

以患者为中心的核心影响(PC-CIS)价值声明的证据标准。
除非数据集中包含的元素符合常规科学和基本测量标准,否则以患者为中心的核心影响集(PC-CIS)的建议与处方和卫生系统决策几乎没有关系,更不用说患者和提供者了。遵守这些标准将会产生关注拟议核心影响措施的充分性的效果,并设置一个过滤器,只接受那些不仅符合物理科学标准,而且符合主流经济学标准的标准。还有健康经济学。幸运的是,我们很清楚在疾病状态中接受和拒绝核心影响的标准应该是什么,就其所需的属性和它们与支持可评估价值声明的相关性而言,特别是对于患者报告的结果,Rasch或现代测量理论。必须注意描述核心影响因素:分别确定纯临床影响和以患者为中心的核心影响,后者又应与根据药物利用和资源利用定义的影响区分开来。这篇简短评论的目的是为核心影响以患者为中心的价值主张和评估这些主张的框架制定所需的标准。以患者为中心的核心影响的关键问题是认识到疾病领域内目标患者群体的基本测量标准所施加的限制;除非认识到这些制约因素,否则我们将失败。这导致了Rasch或现代测量理论校准的作用,作为以患者为中心的潜在特征或属性测量的框架。从这些角度来看,PC-CIS还不成熟;在我们就临床、以患者为中心和资源利用的影响或结果的衡量标准达成一致之前,在目前证据基础如此薄弱的情况下,将其推广到更广泛的范围似乎毫无意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信