A qualitative study of the relationship between the Scottish medicines consortium and their clinical experts

Newham, Rosemary and Corcoran, Emma Dunlop and Dear, James W. and Hems, Sharon and McTaggart, Stuart and Bennie, Marion (2015) A qualitative study of the relationship between the Scottish medicines consortium and their clinical experts. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. ISSN 1356-1294 (https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12325)

[thumbnail of Newham-etal-JECP-2015-A-qualitative-study-of-the-relationship-between-the-Scottish-medicines-consortium]
Preview
 Text. Filename: Newham_etal_JECP_2015_A_qualitative_study_of_the_relationship_between_the_Scottish_medicines_consortium.pdf
Accepted Author Manuscript
Download (1MB)| Preview

Abstract

Internationally, health technology assessments (HTAs) are ubiquitous drivers to health policy. Within Scotland, the Scottish Medicines Consortium undertakes the medicine review process. Input from clinical experts, involved in frontline care, is an integral component of the assessment process. This paper explores the relationship between the clinical experts and the HTA agency within Scotland to better understand what motivates expert clinicians to devote their time to the medicine review process with no remuneration. Twenty-seven clinical experts from 16 different clinical specialties took part in one-to-one interviews at their place of work between October 2011 and March 2012. Data analysis was inductive and comprised the organization of data into a framework and a subsequent thematic analysis. Three distinct themes were identified: (1) recruitment, which identified two types of explanations for the experts' appointment: external justification (nominated by another) and internal justification (being recognized as an expert); (2) flexibility of the procedures, with experts able to determine their own response style and negotiate timelines; (3) health care systems, demonstrating that their affiliation to the health system underpinned the relationship and their motivation to be clinical experts. The findings of this study provide insight into the elements important to clinicians who voluntarily contribute to HTA processes. Examination of these elements in the context of the organizational citizenship behavior literature provides a foundation on which to improve understanding of this relationship and sustain and improve clinical expert participation in an increasingly intensified clinical environment and within cash-limited HTA systems.

ORCID iDs

Newham, Rosemary ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6816-3111, Corcoran, Emma Dunlop ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0719-7614, Dear, James W., Hems, Sharon, McTaggart, Stuart and Bennie, Marion ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4046-629X;
  • Item type:Article
    ID code:55319
    Dates:
    Date
    Event
    23 March 2015
    Published
    23 March 2015
    Published Online
    17 December 2014
    Accepted
    Notes:This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Newham, R., Corcoran, E. D., Dear, J. W., Hems, S., McTaggart, S., & Bennie, M. (2015). A qualitative study of the relationship between the Scottish medicines consortium and their clinical experts. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jep.12325. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving
    Subjects:Medicine > Pharmacy and materia medica
    Department:Faculty of Science > Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences
    Depositing user: Pure Administrator
    Date deposited:14 Jan 2016 10:31
    Last modified:11 Nov 2024 11:02
    Related URLs:
    URI:https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/id/eprint/55319
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)