Dataset Information

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials.

Methods

A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus.

Results

62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items.

Conclusions

Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.

SUBMITTER: Thorn JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8024512 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

Thorn Joanna C JC Davies Charlotte F CF Brookes Sara T ST Noble Sian M SM Dritsaki Melina M Gray Ewan E Hughes Dyfrig A DA Mihaylova Borislava B Petrou Stavros S Ridyard Colin C Sach Tracey T Wilson Edward C F ECF Wordsworth Sarah S Hollingworth William W

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 20201128 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials.<h4>Methods</h4>A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential i ...[more]

PMID: 33840432

Similar Datasets

Project description:Antidote stocking represents a major challenge to hospitals all over the world, including Kuwait. In order to assist hospitals to reduce costs and improve patient care, an essential antidote list can be used as an initial foundation for securing sufficient antidote availability at healthcare institutions. The aim of our study is to generate a nationally relevant essential antidote list for emergency care hospitals in Kuwait using the e-Delphi method by establishing consensus through a multidisciplinary expert group of healthcare providers. An electronic survey with 47 essential antidotes was developed. The e-Delphi method was used, with three rounds of voting, to determine expert consensus on an essential antidote list for hospitals in Kuwait. A purposive sample of healthcare professionals from governmental and private hospitals were selected for this study (n = 30). Consensus was gained if ≥75% of the expert panel agreed on the inclusion of the antidote, without any strong disagreements. Round 1 of the e-Delphi resulted in 41 antidotes reaching consensus and seven new antidotes suggested by the expert panel. Round 2 had two antidotes (out of seven newly suggested ones) reaching consensus. Round 3 was a confirmatory round, where the expert group agreed on their previous rounds' opinions. This resulted in the development of an essential antidote list with 43 antidotes. The optimal approach for ensuring adequate availability of antidotes is continuous monitoring of local poisoning incidence and antidote requirements through collaborations between academic researchers and emergency care clinicians. The development of an essential antidote list, with expert consensus, is one of the initial steps in securing a foundation for appropriate provision of antidotes at all healthcare institutions. This is the first study that the authors are aware of that demonstrates that the e-Delphi technique can consolidate recommendations of experts in emergency medicine to provide a list of essential antidotes.

Project description:BackgroundIn the quest for public and private resources, prevention continues to face a difficult challenge in obtaining tangible public and political support. This may be partly because the economic evidence in favour of prevention is often said to be largely missing. The overall aim of this paper is to examine whether economic evidence in favour of prevention does exist, and if so, what its main characteristics, weaknesses and strengths are. We concentrate on the evidence regarding primary prevention that targets cardiovascular disease event or risk reduction.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review of journal articles published during the period 1995-2005, based on a comprehensive key-word based search in generic and specialized electronic databases, accompanied by manual searches of expert databases. The search strategy consisted of combinations of freetext and keywords related to economic evaluation, cardiovascular diseases, and primary preventive interventions of risk assessment or modification.ResultsA total of 195 studies fulfilled all of the relevant inclusion criteria. Overall, a significant amount of relevant economic evidence in favour of prevention does exist, despite important remaining gaps. The majority of studies were cost-effectiveness-analyses, expressing benefits as "life years gained", were conducted in a US or UK setting, assessed clinical prevention, mainly drugs targeted at lowering lipid levels, and referred to subjects aged 35-64 years old with at least one risk factor.ConclusionFirst, this review has demonstrated the obvious lack of economic evaluations of broader health promotion interventions, when compared to clinical prevention. Second, the clear role for government to engage more actively in the economic evaluation of prevention has become very obvious, namely, to fill the gap left by private industry in terms of the evaluation of broader public health interventions and regarding clinical prevention, in light of the documented relationship between study funding and reporting of favourable results. Third, the value of greater adherence to established guidelines on economic evaluation cannot be emphasised enough. Finally, there appear to be certain methodological features in the practice of economic evaluations that might bias the choice between prevention and cure in favour of the latter.

Dataset Information

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets