INTRODUCTION: Demonstrating the validity of a public health simulation model helps to establish confidence in the accuracy and usefulness of a model's results. In this study we evaluated the validity of the Prevention Impacts Simulation Model (PRISM), a system dynamics model that simulates health, mortality, and economic outcomes for the US population. PRISM primarily simulates outcomes related to cardiovascular disease but also includes outcomes related to other chronic diseases that share risk factors. PRISM is openly available through a web application. METHODS: We applied the model validation framework developed independently by the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the Society for Medical Decision Making modeling task force to validate PRISM. This framework included model review by external experts and quantitative data comparison by the study team. RESULTS: External expert review determined that PRISM is based on up-to-date science. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that no parameter affected results by more than 5%. Comparison with other published models, such as ModelHealth, showed that PRISM produces lower estimates of effects and cost savings. Comparison with surveillance data showed that projected model trends in risk factors and outcomes align closely with secular trends. Four measures did not align with surveillance data, and those were recalibrated. CONCLUSION: PRISM is a useful tool to simulate the potential effects and costs of public health interventions. Results of this validation should help assure health policy leaders that PRISM can help support community health program planning and evaluation efforts.
INTRODUCTION: Demonstrating the validity of a public health simulation model helps to establish confidence in the accuracy and usefulness of a model's results. In this study we evaluated the validity of the Prevention Impacts Simulation Model (PRISM), a system dynamics model that simulates health, mortality, and economic outcomes for the US population. PRISM primarily simulates outcomes related to cardiovascular disease but also includes outcomes related to other chronic diseases that share risk factors. PRISM is openly available through a web application. METHODS: We applied the model validation framework developed independently by the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the Society for Medical Decision Making modeling task force to validate PRISM. This framework included model review by external experts and quantitative data comparison by the study team. RESULTS: External expert review determined that PRISM is based on up-to-date science. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that no parameter affected results by more than 5%. Comparison with other published models, such as ModelHealth, showed that PRISM produces lower estimates of effects and cost savings. Comparison with surveillance data showed that projected model trends in risk factors and outcomes align closely with secular trends. Four measures did not align with surveillance data, and those were recalibrated. CONCLUSION: PRISM is a useful tool to simulate the potential effects and costs of public health interventions. Results of this validation should help assure health policy leaders that PRISM can help support community health program planning and evaluation efforts.
Authors: David M Eddy; William Hollingworth; J Jaime Caro; Joel Tsevat; Kathryn M McDonald; John B Wong Journal: Value Health Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Michael V Maciosek; Amy B LaFrance; Steven P Dehmer; Dana A McGree; Zack Xu; Thomas J Flottemesch; Leif I Solberg Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Pamela Coxson; Mark J Pletcher; James Lightwood; Lee Goldman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-12-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Steven L Gortmaker; Michael W Long; Stephen C Resch; Zachary J Ward; Angie L Cradock; Jessica L Barrett; Davene R Wright; Kendrin R Sonneville; Catherine M Giles; Rob C Carter; Marj L Moodie; Gary Sacks; Boyd A Swinburn; Amber Hsiao; Seanna Vine; Jan Barendregt; Theo Vos; Y Claire Wang Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: Benjamin Yarnoff; Christina Bradley; Amanda A Honeycutt; Robin E Soler; Diane Orenstein Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Benjamin Yarnoff; Emily Teachout; Kara MacLeod; John Whitehill; Julia Jordan; Zohra Tayebali; Laurel Bates Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 4.022