Search

Background Surrogate outcomes are a significant challenge in drug evaluation for health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. The research objectives were to: identify factors associated with surrogate use and acceptability in Canada's Common Drug Review (CDR) recommendations, and compare the CDR with other HTA or regulatory agencies regarding surrogate concerns. Methods Final recommendations were identified from CDR inception (September 2003) to December 31, 2010. Recommendations were classified by type of outcome (surrogate, final, other) and acceptability of surrogates (determined by the presence/absence of statements of concern regarding surrogates). Descriptive and statistical analyses examined factors related to surrogate use and acceptability. For thirteen surrogate-based submissions, recommendations from international HTA and regulatory agencies were reviewed for statements about surrogate acceptability. Results Of 156 final recommendations, 68 (44%) involved surrogates. The overall 'do not list' (DNL) rate was 48%; the DNL rate for surrogates was 41% (p = 0.175). The DNL rate was 64% for non-accepted surrogates (n = 28) versus 25% for accepted surrogates (odds ratio 5.4, p = 0.002). Clinical uncertainty, use of economic evidence over price alone, and a premium price were significantly associated with non-accepted surrogates. Surrogates were used most commonly for HIV, diabetes, rare diseases, cardiovascular disease and cancer. For the subset of drugs studied, other HTA agencies did not express concerns for most recommendations, while regulatory agencies frequently stated surrogate acceptance. Conclusions The majority of surrogates were accepted at the CDR. Non-accepted surrogates were significantly associated with clinical uncertainty and a DNL recommendation. There was inconsistency of surrogate acceptability across several international agencies. Stakeholders should consider collaboratively establishing guidelines on the use, validation, and acceptability of surrogates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical teaching evaluations are common in health profession education programs to ensure students are receiving a quality clinical education experience. Questionnaires students use to evaluate their clinical teachers have been developed in professions such as medicine and nursing. The development of a questionnaire that is specifically for the osteopathy on-campus, student-led clinic environment is warranted. Previous work developed the 30-item Osteopathy Clinical Teaching Questionnaire. The current study utilised Rasch analysis to investigate the construct validity of the Osteopathy Clinical Teaching Questionnaire and provide evidence for the validity argument through fit to the Rasch model. Methods: Senior osteopathy students at four institutions in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom rated their clinical teachers using the Osteopathy Clinical Teaching Questionnaire. Three hundred and ninety-nine valid responses were received and the data were evaluated for fit to the Rasch model. Reliability estimations (Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega) were also evaluated for the final model. Results: The initial analysis demonstrated the data did not fit the Rasch model. Accordingly, modifications to the questionnaire were made including removing items, removing person responses, and rescoring one item. The final model contained 12 items and fit to the Rasch model was adequate. Support for unidimensionality was demonstrated through both the Principal Components Analysis/t-test, and the Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega reliability estimates. Analysis of the questionnaire using McDonald's omega hierarchical supported a general factor (quality of clinical teaching in osteopathy). Conclusion: The evidence for unidimensionality and the presence of a general factor support the calculation of a total score for the questionnaire as a sufficient statistic. Further work is now required to investigate the reliability of the 12-item Osteopathy Clinical Teaching Questionnaire to provide evidence for the validity argument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]