Dataset Information

Reference Case Methods for Expert Elicitation in Health Care Decision Making.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The evidence used to inform health care decision making (HCDM) is typically uncertain. In these situations, the experience of experts is essential to help decision makers reach a decision. Structured expert elicitation (referred to as elicitation) is a quantitative process to capture experts' beliefs. There is heterogeneity in the existing elicitation methodology used in HCDM, and it is not clear if existing guidelines are appropriate for use in this context. In this article, we seek to establish reference case methods for elicitation to inform HCDM.

Methods

We collated the methods available for elicitation using reviews and critique. In addition, we conducted controlled experiments to test the accuracy of alternative methods. We determined the suitability of the methods choices for use in HCDM according to a predefined set of principles for elicitation in HCDM, which we have also generated. We determined reference case methods for elicitation in HCDM for health technology assessment (HTA).

Results

In almost all methods choices available for elicitation, we found a lack of empirical evidence supporting recommendations. Despite this, it is possible to define reference case methods for HTA. The reference methods include a focus on gathering experts with substantive knowledge of the quantities being elicited as opposed to those trained in probability and statistics, eliciting quantities that the expert might observe directly, and individual elicitation of beliefs, rather than solely consensus methods. It is likely that there are additional considerations for decision makers in health care outside of HTA.

Conclusions

The reference case developed here allows the use of different methods, depending on the decision-making setting. Further applied examples of elicitation methods would be useful. Experimental evidence comparing methods should be generated.

SUBMITTER: Bojke L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8777312 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesHigh-quality evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is rarely available and relevant for health policy decisions in low-resource settings. In such situations, innovative approaches are needed to generate locally relevant evidence. This study aims to inform decision-making on antenatal care (ANC) recommendations in Rwanda by estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness of the recent (2016) WHO antenatal care recommendations compared to current practice in Rwanda.MethodsTwo health outcome scenarios (optimistic, pessimistic) in terms of expected maternal and perinatal mortality reduction were constructed using expert elicitation with gynaecologists/obstetricians currently practicing in Rwanda. Three costing scenarios were constructed from the societal perspective over a 1-year period. The two main inputs to the cost analyses were a Monte Carlo simulation of the distribution of ANC attendance for a hypothetical cohort of 373,679 women and unit cost estimation of the new recommendations using data from a recent primary costing study of current ANC practice in Rwanda. Results were reported in 2015 USD and compared with the 2015 Rwandan per-capita gross domestic product (US$ 697).ResultsIncremental health gains were estimated as 162,509 life-years saved (LYS) in the optimistic scenario and 65,366 LYS in the pessimistic scenario. Incremental cost ranged between $5.8 and $11 million (an increase of 42% and 79%, respectively, compared to current practice) across the costing scenarios. In the optimistic outcome scenario, incremental cost per LYS ranged between $36 (for low ANC attendance) and $67 (high ANC attendance), while in the pessimistic outcome scenario, it ranged between $90 (low ANC attendance) and $168 (high ANC attendance) per LYS. Incremental cost effectiveness was below the GDP-based thresholds in all six scenarios.DiscussionImplementing the new WHO ANC recommendations in Rwanda would likely be very cost-effective; however, the additional resource requirements are substantial. This study demonstrates how expert elicitation combined with other data can provide an affordable source of locally relevant evidence for health policy decisions in low-resource settings.

Project description:BackgroundWith rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development.MethodsA systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004-2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed.ResultsA total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs.ConclusionThere are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods.