Medical oncologists' dance with international guidelines and national reimbursement: insights from a survey in Türkiye.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Ozgur Tanriverdi, Melek Ozdemir, Emre Hafizoglu, Taliha Guclu, Elvina Almurodova, Sait Kitapli, Islam Cagri Bosna, Tugba Dubektas-Canbek, Utku Oflazoglu, Ali Alkan, Sabri Barutca
{"title":"Medical oncologists' dance with international guidelines and national reimbursement: insights from a survey in Türkiye.","authors":"Ozgur Tanriverdi, Melek Ozdemir, Emre Hafizoglu, Taliha Guclu, Elvina Almurodova, Sait Kitapli, Islam Cagri Bosna, Tugba Dubektas-Canbek, Utku Oflazoglu, Ali Alkan, Sabri Barutca","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2462238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study explores Turkish medical oncologists' perceptions of integrating international treatment guidelines with national reimbursement policies, considering local legal, economic, and healthcare constraints.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from March 24-31, 2024, targeting all 1,096 active oncologists registered with the Turkish Medical Oncology Association, as these specialists are exclusively authorized to prescribe anticancer drugs under national regulations. The survey included 25 questions on demographics, perceptions of guidelines, and integration preferences. Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests and logistic regression, identified factors influencing guideline preferences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 337 respondents (31%), 94% found international guidelines essential, but 62% noted a lack of clear real-world algorithms. Significant predictors for preferring national guidelines included working in public institutions (OR: 3.90, <i>p</i> < 0.001), concerns about pharmaceutical industry influence (OR: 4.38, <i>p</i> = 0.017), legal challenges (OR: 5.89, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and variability among clinical research centers (OR: 2.95, <i>p</i> = 0.019). Despite these challenges, 57% favored national guidelines for their compatibility with local healthcare policies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings highlight the need for hybrid models that merge the evidence-based rigor of international frameworks with local healthcare priorities. Such models can enhance equitable and effective cancer care in Türkiye by addressing both global standards and national realities.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2462238","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study explores Turkish medical oncologists' perceptions of integrating international treatment guidelines with national reimbursement policies, considering local legal, economic, and healthcare constraints.

Research design and methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from March 24-31, 2024, targeting all 1,096 active oncologists registered with the Turkish Medical Oncology Association, as these specialists are exclusively authorized to prescribe anticancer drugs under national regulations. The survey included 25 questions on demographics, perceptions of guidelines, and integration preferences. Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests and logistic regression, identified factors influencing guideline preferences.

Results: Among 337 respondents (31%), 94% found international guidelines essential, but 62% noted a lack of clear real-world algorithms. Significant predictors for preferring national guidelines included working in public institutions (OR: 3.90, p < 0.001), concerns about pharmaceutical industry influence (OR: 4.38, p = 0.017), legal challenges (OR: 5.89, p < 0.001), and variability among clinical research centers (OR: 2.95, p = 0.019). Despite these challenges, 57% favored national guidelines for their compatibility with local healthcare policies.

Conclusions: The findings highlight the need for hybrid models that merge the evidence-based rigor of international frameworks with local healthcare priorities. Such models can enhance equitable and effective cancer care in Türkiye by addressing both global standards and national realities.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
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