Reviewing the Evidence to Inform the Population of Cost-Effectiveness Models within Health Technology Assessments

ABSTRACT 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 act...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Value in health 2013-07, Vol.16 (5), p.830-836
Hauptverfasser: Kaltenthaler, Eva, BSc, MSc, PhD, Tappenden, Paul, BA, MSc, PhD, Paisley, Suzy, BA, MA, PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 836
container_issue 5
container_start_page 830
container_title Value in health
container_volume 16
creator Kaltenthaler, Eva, BSc, MSc, PhD
Tappenden, Paul, BA, MSc, PhD
Paisley, Suzy, BA, MA, PhD
description ABSTRACT 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.009
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1541983747</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S1098301513018081</els_id><sourcerecordid>1426020023</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c518t-b308b02e603a7bde23bbaefe41ade4d6289be1767f952c727ad5c307dc87895a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkk1v1DAQQCMEoqXwBzggX5B6SRh_JE4khFStFlqpCATlbDnOpOuQ2Ns42Wr_PU53CxIHuNiW9WbGnjdJ8ppCRoEW77qs2-k-Y0B5BiIDqJ4kpzRnIhWS86fxDFWZcqD5SfIihA4ACs7y58kJ45WQlZSnyd033Fm8t-6WTBsk651t0BkkkydXrvXj8HD91W_nXk_WO-JbsvJhStdti2ayO3QYAvnsG-wDubfTxjpyibqfNuQGzcb53t_uyUUIERvQTeFl8qzVfcBXx_0s-fFxfbO6TK-_fLpaXVynJqfllNYcyhoYFsC1rBtkvK41tiioblA0BSurGqksZFvlzEgmdZMbDrIxpSyrXPOz5PyQdzv6uxnDpAYbDPa9dujnoGguaFVyGXv1X1SwAhgA4xFlB9SMPoQRW7Ud7aDHvaKgFiuqU4sVtVhRIFS0EoPeHPPP9YDN75BHDRF4ewR0MLpvR-2MDX-4-E2RSxG59wcuNnvxNqpg7OKrsWO0oRpv__2OD3-Fm946Gyv-xD2Gzs-ji0oUVYEpUN-X-VnGh8alhJLyX2BgwOc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1426020023</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reviewing the Evidence to Inform the Population of Cost-Effectiveness Models within Health Technology Assessments</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Kaltenthaler, Eva, BSc, MSc, PhD ; Tappenden, Paul, BA, MSc, PhD ; Paisley, Suzy, BA, MA, PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Kaltenthaler, Eva, BSc, MSc, PhD ; Tappenden, Paul, BA, MSc, PhD ; Paisley, Suzy, BA, MA, PhD</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1098-3015</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1524-4733</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.009</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23947977</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical guidelines ; Communication ; Cost effectiveness ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; cost-effectiveness modeling ; evidence-based decision making ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Focus Groups ; General aspects ; Guidance ; Health ; health technology assessment ; Humans ; Information technology ; Internal Medicine ; Medical sciences ; Miscellaneous ; model parameters ; Models, Economic ; Parameters ; Planification. Prevention (methods). Intervention. Evaluation ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Research Design ; systematic review methods ; Technology Assessment, Biomedical - economics ; Technology Assessment, Biomedical - organization &amp; administration ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>Value in health, 2013-07, Vol.16 (5), p.830-836</ispartof><rights>International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)</rights><rights>2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c518t-b308b02e603a7bde23bbaefe41ade4d6289be1767f952c727ad5c307dc87895a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c518t-b308b02e603a7bde23bbaefe41ade4d6289be1767f952c727ad5c307dc87895a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.009$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,3552,27931,27932,31007,46002</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=27674574$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23947977$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kaltenthaler, Eva, BSc, MSc, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tappenden, Paul, BA, MSc, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paisley, Suzy, BA, MA, PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Reviewing the Evidence to Inform the Population of Cost-Effectiveness Models within Health Technology Assessments</title><title>Value in health</title><addtitle>Value Health</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT 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.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical guidelines</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Cost effectiveness</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>cost-effectiveness modeling</subject><subject>evidence-based decision making</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine</subject><subject>Focus Groups</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Guidance</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>health technology assessment</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information technology</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>model parameters</subject><subject>Models, Economic</subject><subject>Parameters</subject><subject>Planification. Prevention (methods). Intervention. Evaluation</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>systematic review methods</subject><subject>Technology Assessment, Biomedical - economics</subject><subject>Technology Assessment, Biomedical - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>1098-3015</issn><issn>1524-4733</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkk1v1DAQQCMEoqXwBzggX5B6SRh_JE4khFStFlqpCATlbDnOpOuQ2Ns42Wr_PU53CxIHuNiW9WbGnjdJ8ppCRoEW77qs2-k-Y0B5BiIDqJ4kpzRnIhWS86fxDFWZcqD5SfIihA4ACs7y58kJ45WQlZSnyd033Fm8t-6WTBsk651t0BkkkydXrvXj8HD91W_nXk_WO-JbsvJhStdti2ayO3QYAvnsG-wDubfTxjpyibqfNuQGzcb53t_uyUUIERvQTeFl8qzVfcBXx_0s-fFxfbO6TK-_fLpaXVynJqfllNYcyhoYFsC1rBtkvK41tiioblA0BSurGqksZFvlzEgmdZMbDrIxpSyrXPOz5PyQdzv6uxnDpAYbDPa9dujnoGguaFVyGXv1X1SwAhgA4xFlB9SMPoQRW7Ud7aDHvaKgFiuqU4sVtVhRIFS0EoPeHPPP9YDN75BHDRF4ewR0MLpvR-2MDX-4-E2RSxG59wcuNnvxNqpg7OKrsWO0oRpv__2OD3-Fm946Gyv-xD2Gzs-ji0oUVYEpUN-X-VnGh8alhJLyX2BgwOc</recordid><startdate>20130701</startdate><enddate>20130701</enddate><creator>Kaltenthaler, Eva, BSc, MSc, PhD</creator><creator>Tappenden, Paul, BA, MSc, PhD</creator><creator>Paisley, Suzy, BA, MA, PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130701</creationdate><title>Reviewing the Evidence to Inform the Population of Cost-Effectiveness Models within Health Technology Assessments</title><author>Kaltenthaler, Eva, BSc, MSc, PhD ; Tappenden, Paul, BA, MSc, PhD ; Paisley, Suzy, BA, MA, PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c518t-b308b02e603a7bde23bbaefe41ade4d6289be1767f952c727ad5c307dc87895a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical guidelines</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Cost effectiveness</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>cost-effectiveness modeling</topic><topic>evidence-based decision making</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine</topic><topic>Focus Groups</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Guidance</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>health technology assessment</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information technology</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>model parameters</topic><topic>Models, Economic</topic><topic>Parameters</topic><topic>Planification. Prevention (methods). Intervention. Evaluation</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>systematic review methods</topic><topic>Technology Assessment, Biomedical - economics</topic><topic>Technology Assessment, Biomedical - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kaltenthaler, Eva, BSc, MSc, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tappenden, Paul, BA, MSc, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paisley, Suzy, BA, MA, PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>Value in health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kaltenthaler, Eva, BSc, MSc, PhD</au><au>Tappenden, Paul, BA, MSc, PhD</au><au>Paisley, Suzy, BA, MA, PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reviewing the Evidence to Inform the Population of Cost-Effectiveness Models within Health Technology Assessments</atitle><jtitle>Value in health</jtitle><addtitle>Value Health</addtitle><date>2013-07-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>830</spage><epage>836</epage><pages>830-836</pages><issn>1098-3015</issn><eissn>1524-4733</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT 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.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>23947977</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.009</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1098-3015
ispartof Value in health, 2013-07, Vol.16 (5), p.830-836
issn 1098-3015
1524-4733
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1541983747
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Clinical guidelines
Communication
Cost effectiveness
Cost-Benefit Analysis
cost-effectiveness modeling
evidence-based decision making
Evidence-Based Medicine
Focus Groups
General aspects
Guidance
Health
health technology assessment
Humans
Information technology
Internal Medicine
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous
model parameters
Models, Economic
Parameters
Planification. Prevention (methods). Intervention. Evaluation
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
Research Design
systematic review methods
Technology Assessment, Biomedical - economics
Technology Assessment, Biomedical - organization & administration
Time Factors
title Reviewing the Evidence to Inform the Population of Cost-Effectiveness Models within Health Technology Assessments
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-05T23%3A46%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reviewing%20the%20Evidence%20to%20Inform%20the%20Population%20of%20Cost-Effectiveness%20Models%20within%20Health%20Technology%20Assessments&rft.jtitle=Value%20in%20health&rft.au=Kaltenthaler,%20Eva,%20BSc,%20MSc,%20PhD&rft.date=2013-07-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=830&rft.epage=836&rft.pages=830-836&rft.issn=1098-3015&rft.eissn=1524-4733&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.009&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1426020023%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1426020023&rft_id=info:pmid/23947977&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S1098301513018081&rfr_iscdi=true