Literature DB >> 28616775

Informing Reimbursement Decisions Using Cost-Effectiveness Modelling: A Guide to the Process of Generating Elicited Priors to Capture Model Uncertainties.

Laura Bojke1, Bogdan Grigore2, Dina Jankovic3, Jaime Peters2, Marta Soares3, Ken Stein2.   

Abstract

In informing decisions, utilising health technology assessment (HTA), expert elicitation can provide valuable information, particularly where there is a less-developed evidence-base at the point of market access. In these circumstances, formal methods to elicit expert judgements are preferred to improve the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process, help reduce bias and the use of heuristics, and also provide a structure that allows uncertainty to be expressed. Expert elicitation is the process of transforming the subjective and implicit knowledge of experts into their quantifiable expressions. The use of expert elicitation in HTA is gaining momentum, and there is particular interest in its application to diagnostics, medical devices and complex interventions such as in public health or social care. Compared with the gathering of experimental evidence, elicitation constitutes a reasonably low-cost source of evidence. Given its inherent subject nature, the potential biases in elicited evidence cannot be ignored and, due to its infancy in HTA, there is little guidance to the analyst wishing to conduct a formal elicitation exercise. This article attempts to summarise the stages of designing and conducting an expert elicitation, drawing on key literature and examples, most of which are not in HTA. In addition, we critique their applicability to HTA, given its distinguishing features. There are a number of issues that the analyst should be mindful of, in particular the need to appropriately characterise the uncertainty associated with model inputs and the fact that there are often numerous parameters required, not all of which can be defined using the same quantities. This increases the need for the elicitation task to be as straightforward as possible for the expert to complete.

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28616775     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0525-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  28 in total

1.  The polarizing effect of group discussion.

Authors:  D G Myers; H Lamm
Journal:  Am Sci       Date:  1975 May-Jun       Impact factor: 0.548

2.  What number is "fifty-fifty"?: redistributing excessive 50% responses in elicited probabilities.

Authors:  Wändi Bruine de Bruin; Paul S Fischbeck; Neil A Stiber; Baruch Fischhoff
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.000

3.  Eliciting expert opinion for economic models: an applied example.

Authors:  José Leal; Sarah Wordsworth; Rosa Legood; Edward Blair
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Modeling of experts' divergent prior beliefs for a sequential phase III clinical trial.

Authors:  Marion Moatti; Sarah Zohar; Thierry Facon; Philippe Moreau; Jean-Yves Mary; Sylvie Chevret
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 5.  Methods to elicit probability distributions from experts: a systematic review of reported practice in health technology assessment.

Authors:  Bogdan Grigore; Jaime Peters; Christopher Hyde; Ken Stein
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Methods to elicit experts' beliefs over uncertain quantities: application to a cost effectiveness transition model of negative pressure wound therapy for severe pressure ulceration.

Authors:  Marta O Soares; Laura Bojke; Jo Dumville; Cynthia Iglesias; Nicky Cullum; Karl Claxton
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-07-11       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 7.  The cost-effectiveness of screening for oral cancer in primary care.

Authors:  P M Speight; S Palmer; D R Moles; M C Downer; D H Smith; M Henriksson; F Augustovski
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.014

8.  The use of expert elicitation in environmental health impact assessment: a seven step procedure.

Authors:  Anne B Knol; Pauline Slottje; Jeroen P van der Sluijs; Erik Lebret
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2010-04-26       Impact factor: 5.984

Review 9.  Enhanced external counterpulsation for the treatment of stable angina and heart failure: a systematic review and economic analysis.

Authors:  C McKenna; C McDaid; S Suekarran; N Hawkins; K Claxton; K Light; M Chester; J Cleland; N Woolacott; M Sculpher
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 4.014

10.  A comparison of two methods for expert elicitation in health technology assessments.

Authors:  Bogdan Grigore; Jaime Peters; Christopher Hyde; Ken Stein
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  12 in total

1.  Using Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials in Economic Models: What Information is Relevant and is There a Minimum Amount of Sample Data Required to Make Decisions?

Authors:  John W Stevens
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Understanding and Identifying Key Issues with the Involvement of Clinicians in the Development of Decision-Analytic Model Structures: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Samantha Husbands; Susan Jowett; Pelham Barton; Joanna Coast
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Influence of Modeling Choices on Value of Information Analysis: An Empirical Analysis from a Real-World Experiment.

Authors:  David D Kim; Gregory F Guzauskas; Caroline S Bennette; Anirban Basu; David L Veenstra; Scott D Ramsey; Josh J Carlson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.

Authors:  Valérie D V Sankatsing; Karolina Juraniec; Sabine E Grimm; Manuela A Joore; Ruud M Pijnappel; Harry J de Koning; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Laura Bojke; Marta Soares; Karl Claxton; Abigail Colson; Aimée Fox; Christopher Jackson; Dina Jankovic; Alec Morton; Linda Sharples; Andrea Taylor
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 4.014

6.  EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment.

Authors:  Bogdan Grigore; Jaime Peters; Christopher Hyde; Ken Stein
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2017-09-04       Impact factor: 2.796

7.  Integrating expert opinion with clinical trial data to extrapolate long-term survival: a case study of CAR-T therapy for children and young adults with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Authors:  Shannon Cope; Dieter Ayers; Jie Zhang; Katharine Batt; Jeroen P Jansen
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  How Uncertain is the Survival Extrapolation? A Study of the Impact of Different Parametric Survival Models on Extrapolated Uncertainty About Hazard Functions, Lifetime Mean Survival and Cost Effectiveness.

Authors:  Ben Kearns; John Stevens; Shijie Ren; Alan Brennan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Combining Model-Based Clinical Trial Simulation, Pharmacoeconomics, and Value of Information to Optimize Trial Design.

Authors:  Daniel Hill-McManus; Dyfrig A Hughes
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2020-12-31

10.  Practical metrics for establishing the health benefits of research to support research prioritisation.

Authors:  Beth Woods; Laetitia Schmitt; Claire Rothery; Andrew Phillips; Timothy B Hallett; Paul Revill; Karl Claxton
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2020-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.