OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessments (HTAs) typically require the development of a cost-effectiveness model, which necessitates the identification, selection, and use of other types of information beyond clinical effectiveness evidence to populate the model parameters. The reviewing activity associated with model development should be transparent and reproducible but can result in a tension between being both timely and systematic. Little procedural guidance exists in this area. The purpose of this article was to provide guidance, informed by focus groups, on what might constitute a systematic and transparent approach to reviewing information to populate model parameters. METHODS: A focus group series was held with HTA experts in the United Kingdom including systematic reviewers, information specialists, and health economic modelers to explore these issues. Framework analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data elicited during focus groups. RESULTS: Suggestions included the use of rapid reviewing methods and the need to consider the trade-off between relevance and quality. The need for transparency in the reporting of review methods was emphasized. It was suggested that additional attention should be given to the reporting of parameters deemed to be more important to the model or where the preferred decision regarding the choice of evidence is equivocal. DISCUSSION: These recommendations form part of a Technical Support Document produced for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Decision Support Unit in the United Kingdom. It is intended that these recommendations will help to ensure a more systematic, transparent, and reproducible process for the review of model parameters within HTA.
OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessments (HTAs) typically require the development of a cost-effectiveness model, which necessitates the identification, selection, and use of other types of information beyond clinical effectiveness evidence to populate the model parameters. The reviewing activity associated with model development should be transparent and reproducible but can result in a tension between being both timely and systematic. Little procedural guidance exists in this area. The purpose of this article was to provide guidance, informed by focus groups, on what might constitute a systematic and transparent approach to reviewing information to populate model parameters. METHODS: A focus group series was held with HTA experts in the United Kingdom including systematic reviewers, information specialists, and health economic modelers to explore these issues. Framework analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data elicited during focus groups. RESULTS: Suggestions included the use of rapid reviewing methods and the need to consider the trade-off between relevance and quality. The need for transparency in the reporting of review methods was emphasized. It was suggested that additional attention should be given to the reporting of parameters deemed to be more important to the model or where the preferred decision regarding the choice of evidence is equivocal. DISCUSSION: These recommendations form part of a Technical Support Document produced for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Decision Support Unit in the United Kingdom. It is intended that these recommendations will help to ensure a more systematic, transparent, and reproducible process for the review of model parameters within HTA.
Authors: Roberta Ara; Tessa Peasgood; Clara Mukuria; Helene Chevrou-Severac; Donna Rowen; Ismail Azzabi-Zouraq; Suzy Paisley; Tracey Young; Ben van Hout; John Brazier Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 4.981