Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 550–562 | Cite as

The System of Objectified Judgement Analysis (SOJA)

A Tool in Rational Drug Selection for Formulary Inclusion
  • Robert Janknegt
  • Adri Steenhoek
Leading Article

Summary

Rational drug selection for formulary purposes is important. Besides rational selection criteria, other factors play a role in drug decision making, such as emotional, personal financial and even unconscious criteria. It is agreed that these factors should be excluded as much as possible in the decision making process.

A model for drug decision making for formulary purposes is described, the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis (SOJA). In the SOJA method, selection criteria for a given group of drugs are prospectively defined and the extent to which each drug fulfils the requirements for each criterion is determined. Each criterion is given a relative weight, i.e. the more important a given selection criterion is considered, the higher the relative weight. Both the relative scores for each drug per selection criterion and the relative weight of each criterion are determined by a panel of experts in this field. The following selection criteria are applied in all SOJA scores: clinical efficacy, incidence and severity of adverse effects, dosage frequency, drug interactions, acquisition cost, documentation, pharmacokinetics and pharmaceutical aspects.

Besides these criteria, group specific criteria are also used, such as development of resistance when a SOJA score was made for antimicrobial agents. The relative weight that is assigned to each criterion will always be a subject of discussion. Therefore, interactive software programs for use on a personal computer have been developed, in which the user of the system may enter their own personal relative weight to each selection criterion and make their own personal SOJA score. The main advantage of the SOJA method is that all nonrational selection criteria are excluded and that drug decision making is based solely on rational criteria. The use of the interactive SOJA discs makes the decision process fully transparent as it becomes clear on which criteria and weighting decisions are based. We have seen that the use of this method for drug decision making greatly aids the discussion in the formulary committee, as discussion becomes much more concrete.

The SOJA method is time dependent. Documentation on most products is still increasing and the score for this criterion will therefore change continuously. New products are introduced and prices are also subject to change. To overcome the time-dependence of the SOJA method, regular updates of interactive software programs are being made, in which changes in acquisition cost, documentation or a different weighting of criteria are included, as well as newly introduced products. The possibility of changing the official acquisition cost into the actual purchasing costs for the hospital in question provides a tailor-made interactive program.

Keywords

Fluoroquinolones Lower Respiratory Tract Infection Zopiclone Drug Selection Loprazolam 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chren MM, Landefeld CS. Physicians’ behaviour and their interactions with drug companies. JAMA 1994; 271: 684–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Newton W, Goldstein A, Frey J. There is no such thing as a free lunch: developing policies on pharmaceutical industry support. J Fam Pract 1992; 34: 32–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Payer L. Medicine and culture. New York: Penguin Books, 1989Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wieringa B, Jong SJT, Mantel AF. Het beslissingsproces van de huisarts bij de keuze van een geneesmiddel. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1989; 133: 115–22Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Denig P, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. Therapeutic decision making of physicians. Pharm Weekbl [Sci] 1992; 14: 9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steenhoek A, Janknegt R, Oldenhof HGJ, et al. SOJA systeem: hulp bij belangrijke keuzemomenten in de farmacie. Pharm Weekbl 1988; 123: 75–9Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bet PM, Steenhoek A. ACE remmers: een preparaatkeuze volgens de SOJA methode. Pharm Weekbl 1992; 127: 1262–71Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janknegt R, Wijnands WJA, Stobberingh E. Antibiotics in lower respiratory tract infections: drug selection by means of the SOJA method. Eur Hosp Pharm 1996; 2: 64–71Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Janknegt R, Hoes MJ, Hooymans PM, et al. Antidepressiva: een preparaatkeuze door middel van de SOJA methode. Ziekenhuisfarmacie 1996; 12: 59–75Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Janknegt R. Nog meer betablokkers! Een preparaatkeuze volgens de SOJA methode. J Drug Res 1992; 17: 288–95Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kloeg PH, Steenhoek A. Calciumantagonisten: een preparaatkeuze volgens de SOJA methode. Pharm Weekbl 1992; 127: 1250–61Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janknegt R. Fluoroquinolones: use of clinical data to aid formulary choice by the SOJA method. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 6: 15–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Janknegt R, Wiltink EHH. H2-receptor antagonisten, een preparaatkeuze door middel van de SOJA methode. J Drug Res 1993; 18: 249–59Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Janknegt R, van der Kuy A, Declerck AC. Hypnotics: drug selection by means of the SOJA method. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10: 152–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Janknegt R, Brouwers JRBR, van Riel PLCM. Niet-steroide anti-inflammatoire middelen bij reumatoide artritis of art-rose: een preparaatkeuze met de SOJA methode. Ziekenhuis-farmacie 1995; 11: 94–107Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Wolf PJ, Steenhoek A. Plasmavervangmiddelen: een preparaateuze volgens de SOJA methode. Ziekenhuisfarmacie 1994; 10: 1–10Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doern GV. Trends in antimicrobial susceptibility of bacterial pathogens of the respiratory tract. Am J Med 1995; 99Suppl. 6B: 3S–7SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiedemann B. An international perspective on antimicrobial resistance. Am J Med 1995; 99Suppl. 6A: 19S–20SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McLarty JW. How many subjects are required for a study? Clin Pharm 1988; 7: 694–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seldon TA, Smith GD. Consensus conferences as drug promotion. Lancet 1993; 341: 100–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Watanabe Y, Ebert S, Graig W. The AUC/MIC ratio is a unifying parameter for comparison of in-vitro activity among fluoroquinolones [abstract no. 32]. 32nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1992, Anaheim, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Forrest A, Nix DE, Bellow CH, et al. Pharmacodynamics of iv ciprofloxacin in seriously ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 37: 1073–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zellmer WA. Influencing prescriber behavior. Am J Med 1990; 47: 1533Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scott DK, Ferner RE. The strategy of desire and rational prescribing. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 37: 217–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schumacher GE. Multiattribute evaluation in formulary decision making as applied to calcium-channel blockers. Am J Hosp Pharm 1991; 48: 301–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greer ML. Report: a prototype expert system for formulary decision making. Ann Pharmacother 1992; 26: 244–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cano SB, Fujita NK. Formulary evaluation of third-generation cephalosporins using decision analysis. Am J Hosp Pharm 1988; 45: 566–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kotler P. Marketing decision making: a model building approach. New York: Holt, Rineheart and Winston, 1971: 293Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Janknegt R. The system of objective judgement analysis: less objectivity than predicted [letter]. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 181–2Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Janknegt R, Smelik J, Steenhoek A. Betablokkers: keuzecriteria en productvoorkeur. Resultaten van een onderzoek bij 50 huisartsen. Pharm Weekbl 1990; 125: 676–80Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Janknegt R, Steenhoek A. De behandeling van een eenvoudige cystitis: een preparaatkeuze volgens de SOJA methode. J Drug Res 1988; 13: 275–8Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steenhoek A, Oldenhof HGJ, Janknegt R, et al. Geneesmiddelkeuze: spanningsveld of veldslag. Pharm Weekbl 1989; 124: 185–9Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Janknegt R. De SOJA methode als hulpmiddel bij farmacotherapie-overleg. Ned Tijdschr Farmacother 1995; 1: 14–6Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Janknegt R. Formulary choice of fluoroquinolones: use of clinical data in objectified judgement analysis: results from 33 countries. Eur Hosp Pharm 1996; 2: 17–20Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shortliffe EH. Computer programs to support clinical decision making. JAMA 1987; 258: 61–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Senthilkumaran K, Shatz SM, Kalies RF. Computer based support system for formulary decisions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1987; 44: 1362–6PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Janknegt
    • 1
  • Adri Steenhoek
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Pharmacy and ToxicologyMaasland ZiekenhuisSittardThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Clinical PharmacyMedisch Centrum AlkmaarAlkmaarThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations