Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 3/2018

01-06-2018 | Leading Article

Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research

Authors: Patricia Cubi-Molla, Koonal Shah, Kristina Burström

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Whether health values should be elicited from the perspective of patients or the general public is still an open debate. The overall aim of this paper is to increase knowledge on the role of experience in health preference-based valuation research. The objectives of this paper are threefold. First, we elaborate the idea of experience-based (EB) values under the informed value or knowledge viewpoint. We think the whole scope of knowledge about the health states involved in valuation exercises is not fully integrated in the previous literature. For instance, personal knowledge based on past experiences, contemplating the health state as a likely future condition, knowing someone who is currently experiencing the state, or just receiving detailed information about the health states; all these situations capture different nuances of health-related experience which are not explicitly referred to in valuation tasks. Second, we propose a framework where the extended factor of experience is detached from other factors interwoven into the valuation exercise. Third, we examine how experience is tackled in different value sets (EB or non-EB) identified via a literature review. We identified the following elements (and items) in a value set: health state (without description, described using a multi-attribute instrument, described using other method), reference person (the respondent; other person, similar/known/hypothetical), time frame (past, present, future), raters (public, representative/convenience; vested interest, patients/other) and experience (personal experience, past/present/future; vicarious experience, affective/non-affective; no experience). Forty-nine valuation exercises were extracted from 22 reviewed papers and classified following our suggested set of elements and items. The results show that the role of experience reported in health valuation-related papers is frequently disregarded or, at most, minimised to the item of personal experience (present)—linked to self-reported health.
Footnotes
1
Note that Leidl and Reitmeir [36] show the results from an EB valuation developed in Germany; however, the outcomes of that study were individual visual analogue scale scores, with no anchoring to make the scores amenable to the estimation of QALYs. This implies that the scores in Leidl and Reitmeir’s value set should not be interpreted as quality weights for the computation of QALYs without further analysis.
 
2
Note that EB value sets can also collect preference-based measurements, and can therefore be entered as utilities for QALY computations. We thus question the classification suggested in Leidl and Reitmeir [35] of value sets as either EB value sets or utility-based value sets.
 
3
Italic added for emphasis (not in original).
 
4
A modification of the TTO introduces a lead time of perfect health before the health state to be valued. The lead time approach is currently used for the valuation of health states considered worse than dead in the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol [51, 53]. The lead time implicitly delays the impaired health state to the future, so we could think that the new time frame is future. However, the construction of the lead time assumes an initial period of perfect health, what may not be the current health state of the respondent; thus the method is not postponing the start of the hypothetical scenario to be valued. Thus we will contemplate the lead time as part of the health state to be valued. This way the lead time TTO method will also be attached to a present to future time frame, as per the standard TTO. The implications of adding lead time to the health state valuation are beyond the scope of this paper.
 
5
“MVH protocol” was coined in 1993 for describing the way values would be elicited from respondents in the UK first valuation exercise [32]. This protocol was replicated in subsequent valuation tasks. See Oppe et al. [51] for further detail.
 
6
Note that the items can be interpreted in an affirmative or negative way. That is, when asking respondents to imagine that they will/won’t get the illness in the future, both questions address the same item personal experience, future.
 
7
Adjusted for age, sex, education, social class and difficulty with rating task.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J. 2008;118(525):215–34.CrossRef Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J. 2008;118(525):215–34.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Ubel P, Lowenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:599–607.CrossRefPubMed Ubel P, Lowenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:599–607.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference De Wit GA, Busschbach JJ, De Charro FT. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ. 2000;9(2):109–26.CrossRefPubMed De Wit GA, Busschbach JJ, De Charro FT. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ. 2000;9(2):109–26.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Menzel P, Dolan P, Richardson J, Olsen JA. The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(12):2149–58.CrossRefPubMed Menzel P, Dolan P, Richardson J, Olsen JA. The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(12):2149–58.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Versteegh M, Brouwer W. Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2016;165:66–74.CrossRefPubMed Versteegh M, Brouwer W. Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2016;165:66–74.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Oldridge N, Furlong W, Perkins A, Feeny D, Torrance GW. Community or patient preferences for cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation: does it matter? Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008;15(5):608–15.CrossRefPubMed Oldridge N, Furlong W, Perkins A, Feeny D, Torrance GW. Community or patient preferences for cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation: does it matter? Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008;15(5):608–15.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Borkman T. Experiential knowledge: a new concept for the analysis of self-help groups. Soc Serv Rev. 1976;50(3):445–56.CrossRef Borkman T. Experiential knowledge: a new concept for the analysis of self-help groups. Soc Serv Rev. 1976;50(3):445–56.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Abel EK, Browner CH. Selective compliance with biomedical authority and the uses of experiential knowledge. In: Lock M, Kaufert P, editors. Pragmatic women and body politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998. Abel EK, Browner CH. Selective compliance with biomedical authority and the uses of experiential knowledge. In: Lock M, Kaufert P, editors. Pragmatic women and body politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
10.
go back to reference Dolan P, Olsen J, Menzel P, Richardson J. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ. 2003;12(7):545–51.CrossRefPubMed Dolan P, Olsen J, Menzel P, Richardson J. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ. 2003;12(7):545–51.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Leidl R, Schweikert B, Hahmann H, Steinacker JM, Reitmeir P. Assessing quality of life in a clinical study on heart rehabilitation patients: how well do value sets based on given or experienced health states reflect patients’ valuations? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Leidl R, Schweikert B, Hahmann H, Steinacker JM, Reitmeir P. Assessing quality of life in a clinical study on heart rehabilitation patients: how well do value sets based on given or experienced health states reflect patients’ valuations? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Burström K, Sun S, Gerdtham UG, Henriksson M, Johannesson M, Levin LA, et al. Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):431–42.CrossRefPubMed Burström K, Sun S, Gerdtham UG, Henriksson M, Johannesson M, Levin LA, et al. Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):431–42.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Tosh J, Brazier J, Evans P, Longworth L. A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012;15(1):118–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tosh J, Brazier J, Evans P, Longworth L. A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012;15(1):118–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–21.CrossRefPubMed Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–21.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201–8.CrossRefPubMed Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201–8.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Insinga RP, Fryback DG. Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(6):611–9.CrossRefPubMed Insinga RP, Fryback DG. Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(6):611–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health. 2010;13(2):306–9.CrossRefPubMed Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health. 2010;13(2):306–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Aronsson M, Husberg M, Kalkan A, Eckard N, Alwin J. Differences between hypothetical and experience-based value sets for EQ-5D used in Sweden: implications for decision makers. Scand J Public Health. 2015;43(8):848–54.CrossRefPubMed Aronsson M, Husberg M, Kalkan A, Eckard N, Alwin J. Differences between hypothetical and experience-based value sets for EQ-5D used in Sweden: implications for decision makers. Scand J Public Health. 2015;43(8):848–54.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Little MH, Reitmeir P, Peters A, Leidl R. The impact of differences between patient and general population EQ-5D-3L values on the mean tariff scores of different patient groups. Value Health. 2014;17(4):364–71.CrossRefPubMed Little MH, Reitmeir P, Peters A, Leidl R. The impact of differences between patient and general population EQ-5D-3L values on the mean tariff scores of different patient groups. Value Health. 2014;17(4):364–71.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Mulhern B, Bansback N, Brazier J, Buckingham K, Cairns J, Dolan N, et al. Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(12):1–191.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mulhern B, Bansback N, Brazier J, Buckingham K, Cairns J, Dolan N, et al. Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(12):1–191.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference McNamee P. What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values. Health Policy. 2007;84(2):321–31.CrossRefPubMed McNamee P. What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values. Health Policy. 2007;84(2):321–31.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Maor Y, King M, Olmer L, Mozes B. A comparison of three measures: the time trade-off technique, global health-related quality of life and the SF-36 in dialysis patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(6):565–70.CrossRefPubMed Maor Y, King M, Olmer L, Mozes B. A comparison of three measures: the time trade-off technique, global health-related quality of life and the SF-36 in dialysis patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(6):565–70.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Zethraeus N, Johannesson M. A comparison of patient and social tariff values derived from the time trade-off method. Health Econ. 1999;8(6):541–5.CrossRefPubMed Zethraeus N, Johannesson M. A comparison of patient and social tariff values derived from the time trade-off method. Health Econ. 1999;8(6):541–5.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(8):1289–97.CrossRefPubMed Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(8):1289–97.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Dolan P. Developing methods that really do value the ‘Q’in the QALY. Health Econ Policy Law. 2008;3(01):69–77.PubMed Dolan P. Developing methods that really do value the ‘Q’in the QALY. Health Econ Policy Law. 2008;3(01):69–77.PubMed
27.
go back to reference NICE. Guide to the methods of health technology appraisal London: NICE; 2013. NICE. Guide to the methods of health technology appraisal London: NICE; 2013.
28.
go back to reference Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy. 2006;76(3):359–70.CrossRefPubMed Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy. 2006;76(3):359–70.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Boardman F. Knowledge is Power? The role of experiential knowledge in genetically ‘risky’ reproductive decisions. Sociol Health Illn. 2014;36(1):137–50.CrossRefPubMed Boardman F. Knowledge is Power? The role of experiential knowledge in genetically ‘risky’ reproductive decisions. Sociol Health Illn. 2014;36(1):137–50.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference McTaggart-Cowan H, Tsuchiya A, O’Cathain A, Brazier J. Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(11):1904–12.CrossRefPubMed McTaggart-Cowan H, Tsuchiya A, O’Cathain A, Brazier J. Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(11):1904–12.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Boye KS, Matza LS, Feeny DH, Johnston JA, Bowman L, Jordan JB. Challenges to time trade-off utility assessment methods: when should you consider alternative approaches? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(3):437–50.CrossRefPubMed Boye KS, Matza LS, Feeny DH, Johnston JA, Bowman L, Jordan JB. Challenges to time trade-off utility assessment methods: when should you consider alternative approaches? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(3):437–50.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Dolan P. Modelling valuations for health states: the effect of duration. Health Policy. 1996;38:189–203.CrossRefPubMed Dolan P. Modelling valuations for health states: the effect of duration. Health Policy. 1996;38:189–203.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Urdang L, editor. The Oxford thesaurus: an AZ dictionary of synonyms. BCA/Oxford University Press; Reprint edition 1993. Urdang L, editor. The Oxford thesaurus: an AZ dictionary of synonyms. BCA/Oxford University Press; Reprint edition 1993.
34.
go back to reference Bulme S. In search of experiential knowledge. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res. 2017;30(1):91–103.CrossRef Bulme S. In search of experiential knowledge. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res. 2017;30(1):91–103.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Leidl R, Reitmeir P. An experience-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L in Germany. Value Health. 2017;20(8):1150–6.CrossRefPubMed Leidl R, Reitmeir P. An experience-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L in Germany. Value Health. 2017;20(8):1150–6.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Leidl R, Reitmeir P. A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(6):521–34.CrossRefPubMed Leidl R, Reitmeir P. A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(6):521–34.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Sun S, Chen J, Kind P, Xu L, Zhang Y, Burström K. Experience-based VAS values for EQ-5D-3L health states in a national general population health survey in China. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(3):693–703.CrossRefPubMed Sun S, Chen J, Kind P, Xu L, Zhang Y, Burström K. Experience-based VAS values for EQ-5D-3L health states in a national general population health survey in China. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(3):693–703.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Boardman FK. Experience as knowledge: disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 2017;191:186–93.CrossRefPubMed Boardman FK. Experience as knowledge: disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 2017;191:186–93.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Attema A, Versteegh M, Oppe M, Brouwer W, Stolk E. Lead time TTO: leading to better health state valuations? Health Econ. 2013;22(4):376–92.CrossRefPubMed Attema A, Versteegh M, Oppe M, Brouwer W, Stolk E. Lead time TTO: leading to better health state valuations? Health Econ. 2013;22(4):376–92.CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, Kind P. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D Health states. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(1):7–16.CrossRef Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, Kind P. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D Health states. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(1):7–16.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Björk S, Norinder A. The weighting exercise for the Swedish version of the EuroQol. Health Econ. 1999;8(2):117–26.CrossRefPubMed Björk S, Norinder A. The weighting exercise for the Swedish version of the EuroQol. Health Econ. 1999;8(2):117–26.CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.CrossRefPubMed Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Dolan P. Thinking about it: thoughts about health and valuing QALYs. Health Econ. 2011;20(12):1407–16.CrossRefPubMed Dolan P. Thinking about it: thoughts about health and valuing QALYs. Health Econ. 2011;20(12):1407–16.CrossRefPubMed
44.
go back to reference Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJV, Graf van der Schulenburg JM. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade-off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6(2):124–30.CrossRefPubMed Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJV, Graf van der Schulenburg JM. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade-off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6(2):124–30.CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Hofman C, Makai P, Boter H, Buurman B, de Craen A, Rikkert G, et al. The influence of age on health valuations: the older olds prefer functional independence while the younger olds prefer less morbidity. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:1131–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hofman C, Makai P, Boter H, Buurman B, de Craen A, Rikkert G, et al. The influence of age on health valuations: the older olds prefer functional independence while the younger olds prefer less morbidity. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:1131–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
go back to reference Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, Busschbach JJ. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15(10):1121–32.CrossRefPubMed Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, Busschbach JJ. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15(10):1121–32.CrossRefPubMed
47.
go back to reference Tongsiri S, Cairns J. Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1142–5.CrossRefPubMed Tongsiri S, Cairns J. Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1142–5.CrossRefPubMed
48.
go back to reference van Nooten FE, Koolman X, Brouwer WBF. The influence of subjective life expectancy on health state valuations using a 10 year TTO. Health Econ. 2009;18(5):549–58.CrossRefPubMed van Nooten FE, Koolman X, Brouwer WBF. The influence of subjective life expectancy on health state valuations using a 10 year TTO. Health Econ. 2009;18(5):549–58.CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lauridsen J, Gudex C, Pedersen KM. Generation of a Danish TTO value set for EQ-5D health states. Scand J Soc Med. 2009;37(5):459–66. Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lauridsen J, Gudex C, Pedersen KM. Generation of a Danish TTO value set for EQ-5D health states. Scand J Soc Med. 2009;37(5):459–66.
50.
go back to reference Zarate V, Kind P, Chuang LH. Hispanic valuation of the EQ-5D health states: a social value set for Latin Americans. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1170–7.CrossRefPubMed Zarate V, Kind P, Chuang LH. Hispanic valuation of the EQ-5D health states: a social value set for Latin Americans. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1170–7.CrossRefPubMed
51.
go back to reference Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
go back to reference Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol. 1984;39(4):341–50.CrossRef Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol. 1984;39(4):341–50.CrossRef
53.
go back to reference Oppe M, Devlin N, van Hout B, Krabbe PFM, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–53.CrossRefPubMed Oppe M, Devlin N, van Hout B, Krabbe PFM, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–53.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research
Authors
Patricia Cubi-Molla
Koonal Shah
Kristina Burström
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0292-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 3/2018 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.