, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 175–185 | Cite as

Pharmacoeconomics and Clinical Practice Guidelines

A Survey of Attitudes in Swedish Formulary Committees
  • Anders Anell
  • Patrick Svarvar
Original Research Article


Background: Swedish formulary committees are expected to influence prescribing practice by establishing and issuing drug lists and clinical practice guidelines, particularly now that financial responsibility for prescription drugs has been transferred from the national to the county council level.

Objective: The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify the information sources and decision criteria that individual committee members perceive as important in establishing clinical practice guidelines. Moreover, obstacles to the increased use of pharmacoeconomic evaluations in decision-making were also identified.

Design and setting: Data were gathered through a survey questionnaire administered in 1998 to members of central formulary committees throughout Sweden, as determined by a national register.

Participants: 312 members of central formulary committees, of whom 69% responded.

Results: Treatment policies/guidelines supplied by government authorities, or found in reviewed journals, are considered the most important sources of information, and criteria associated with costs and effects are considered themost important decision criteria. The members’ years of experience and their professions affect their assessments of information sources, whereas education in health economics affects their assessments of decision criteria. Committee members voiced an interest in pharmacoeconomic issues, but warned that there was neither sufficient competence among committee members nor an adequate supply of relevant studies. Furthermore, a majority of the members identified difficulty in translating study results into clinical practice guidelines and limited possibilities in comparing studies as obstacles to the increased use of pharmacoeconomic evaluations.

Conclusions: The results of this survey may be useful in designing future economic evaluations and when presenting and diffusing study results.


Information Source National Health Service Decision Criterion Committee Member County Council 
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.



This study was funded by the National Corporation of Swedish Pharmacies and the Swedish Federation of County Councils.


  1. 1.
    Pritchard C. Trends in economic evaluation: OHE briefing No. 36. London: Office of Health Economics, 1998Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sloan FA, Grabowski HG, editors. The impact of cost-effectiveness on public and private policies in health care: an international perspective. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45 (4)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sloan FA, Gabrowski HG. Conclusions and implications. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45 (4): 645–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reform på recept, Delbetänkande av HSU 2000. Stockholm: SOU, 1995: 122Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nordling S. Hur långt har inforandet av läkemedelsreformen kommit i landstingen?: redovisning av enkätstudie våren 1997. Stockholm: Spri, 1997Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zelnio RN. The interaction among the criteria physicians use when prescribing. Med Care 1982; 20 (3): 277–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bradley CP. Decision making and prescribing patterns: a literature review. Fam Pract 1991; 8 (3): 276–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drummond M, Cooke J, Walley T. Economic evaluation under managed competition: evidence from the UK. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45 (4): 583–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: Wiley, 1978Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hair Jr JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, et al. Multivariate data analysis with readings. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall, 1995Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Covell DG, Uman GC, Manning PR. Information needs in office practice: are they being met? Ann Intern Med 1985; 103: 596–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sibley JC, Sacket DL, Neufeld V, et al. Arandomized controlled trial of continuing medical education. N Engl J Med 1982; 306: 511–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lyles A, Luce BR, Rentz AM. Managed care pharmacy, socioeconomic assessments and drug adoption decisions. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45 (4): 511–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Denig P, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. Do physicians take cost into account when making prescribing decisions? Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (4): 282–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walley T, Barton S, Cooke J, et al. Economic evaluation of drug therapy: attitudes of primary care prescribing advisors in Great Britain. Health Policy 1997; 41: 61–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Swedish Institute for Health Economics (IHE)LundSweden

Personalised recommendations