{"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.
背景:本研究探讨了土耳其医学肿瘤学家在考虑当地法律、经济和医疗限制的情况下,将国际治疗指南与国家报销政策相结合的看法。研究设计和方法:一项横断面在线调查于2024年3月24日至31日进行,目标是在土耳其医学肿瘤协会注册的1,096名活跃肿瘤学家,因为这些专家在国家法规下被独家授权开抗癌药物。该调查包括25个问题,涉及人口统计、对指导方针的看法和整合偏好。统计分析,包括卡方检验和逻辑回归,确定了影响指南偏好的因素。结果:在337名受访者(31%)中,94%的人认为国际准则至关重要,但62%的人认为缺乏明确的现实世界算法。偏好国家指南的显著预测因素包括在公共机构工作(OR: 3.90, p = 0.017),法律挑战(OR: 5.89, p = 0.019)。尽管存在这些挑战,57%的人赞成国家指导方针与当地医疗保健政策的兼容性。结论:研究结果强调需要混合模型,将国际框架的循证严谨性与当地医疗保健优先事项相结合。这种模式可以通过处理全球标准和国家现实,加强基基ye的公平和有效的癌症治疗。
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.