Table 1. Study Design.
Study Stage | Quality | Objectives/Aims | Methods | Countries | Physicians |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stage 1 | Quantitative | • % of healthcare expenditures used for IVD | Systematic literature research | Germany and US | None |
• % of healthcare expenditures used for IVD in hospital and private practice | |||||
Stage 2 | Qualitative & Quantitative | • Patients seen per week | Interviews | Germany | Onc (N = 20) Card (N = 20 |
• Distribution | US | Onc (N = 20) | |||
○ New patients | Card (N = 19) | ||||
○ Patients undergoing treatment | |||||
○ Patients in post-treatment phase | |||||
• Overall and specific amount of IVD testing | |||||
○ In initial diagnostic phase | |||||
• IVD subtype use | |||||
• Rated importance of IVD subtype | |||||
○ In treatment phase | |||||
○ In post-treatment follow-up | |||||
• Treatment decision based on IVD-testing | |||||
Stage 3 | Quantitative | • % of healthcare expenditures used for IVD | Questionnaire | Germany | Onc (N = 30) Card (N = 51) |
• Perceived HCE on IVD testing | US | Onc (N = 70) Card (N = 50) | |||
• Perception of spending appropriateness | |||||
• Design of optimal biomarker | Germany, US, UK, Canada, Norway, Switzerland | Onc (N = 102) Card (N = 102) GP (N = 38) Int. M (N = 38) Path (N = 68) |
Display of study design, objectives and methods used in the three different parts of the analysis. Number of sources, included physicians, their specializations and country of origin.
IVD, in-vitro diagnostic; Onc, oncologist; Card, cardiologist; GP, general practitioner; Int. M, internal medicine; Path, pathologist; HCE, healthcare expenditure.