Skip to main content
. 2016 Mar 4;11(3):e0149856. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149856

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.