Objective: Frameworks designed to objectively assess the value of drugs are continually being developed and updated. The objective of this research was to review existing value frameworks across therapeutic areas, identify the extent to which patient perspectives were incorporated, and derive findings that could assist in the development of a value framework for respiratory disease. Methods: A literature review of value frameworks was undertaken using PubMed and Google Scholar with “value framework” search words. Frameworks were subsequently assessed focusing on five domains: (1)geographic and clinical scope, and current status of the framework, (2)ownership and stated purpose, (3)framework innate characteristics, (4)implementation characteristics (referring to the way the value framework has been used since release), and (5)the degree of patient involvement. Results: A total of 12 value frameworks were identified for further analysis. These focused on oncology(n=4), orphan diseases(n=3), no specific disease(n=3) cardiology(n=1) and medical devices(n=1). Five key findings were identified. First, engagement with patients, manufacturers, and drug developers was repeatedly mentioned (5/12). However, patient involvement such as setting up and implementing value frameworks was rare, and approaches to capturing and quantifying patient needs were not observed. Second, several frameworks used weightings to emphasize aspects of value (6/12). Third, simple scoring and visual techniques were employed to aid framework uptake and understanding (3/12). Fourth, prioritization was utilized to aid stakeholder decision-making (4/12). Finally, less tangible aspects of value were gaining traction (e.g., value of hope, real option value, scientific spill over) (6/12). Conclusions: Our analysis of 12 published value frameworks indicates patient burden of illness, needs, and priorities are rarely collected. In respiratory disease, for which patients play a crucial role in managing their conditions, a value framework needs to directly incorporate the patient perspective (clinical, economic, and humanistic burdens) and ensure it is weighted appropriately. Supported by AstraZeneca