Skip to main content

Table 1 Key points from the interviews

From: Politics and its intersection with coverage with evidence development: a qualitative analysis from expert interviews

Theme Subtheme Key points
What constitutes CED What is worthy of research • Conditionality is most important, e.g., drug or device, characteristic of disease
What constitutes uncertainty and how should it be measured • Determining uncertainty is an art
What constitutes evidence and how should it be managed • How much agreement should there be on minimum evidence expectations
• CED can become a never ending series of studies
Lack of a systematic approach/governance structure Role of different stakeholders • Where should leadership rest
• Over involvement of multiple stakeholders
• Engage disease advocacy groups
Translation of research into policy • Requires guidelines and a discontinuation policy
• Limited data and financial considerations are barriers
• Justifying the continued flow of funds requires policy standardization and a formal agreement of the strategy to be put in place
Corporate influence and overt politics in CED The political process as part of CED • Political processes in terms of the source of money and  decision-making are at a level above researchers
• Political processes can undermine the ability to achieve real change
• Researchers blame policy makers and decision makers for problems in translating research into policy
The role of the pharmaceutical industry • Researchers, policy makers and decision makers are all skeptical about the role of industry
Alternatives and barriers to CED Alternatives • Preference expressed for risk-sharing and tax breaks over CED
Barriers – data and privacy issues • Concern that decision makers are not willing to be accountable
• Doctors not cooperative enough
• Need better access to data and the ability to link databases
   • Registries useful but come with their own set of problems