nach oben

PharmacoEconomics

Erschienen in:

01.11.2006 | Conference Paper

Using Value of Information Analysis to Prioritise Health Research

Some Lessons from Recent UK Experience

verfasst von: Karl P. Claxton, Mark J. Sculpher

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 11/2006

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Decisions to adopt, reimburse or issue guidance on the use of health technologies are increasingly being informed by explicit cost-effectiveness analyses of the alternative interventions. Healthcare systems also invest heavily in research and development to support these decisions. However, the increasing transparency of adoption and reimbursement decisions, based on formal analysis, contrasts sharply with research prioritisation and commissioning. This is despite the fact that formal measures of the value of evidence generated by research are readily available.

The results of two recent opportunities to apply value of information analysis to directly inform policy decisions about research priorities in the UK are presented. These include a pilot study for the UK National Co-ordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA) and a pilot study for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). We demonstrate how these results can be used to address a series of policy questions, including: is further research required to support the use of a technology and, if so, what type of research would be most valuable? We also show how the results can be used to address other questions such as, which patient subgroups should be included in subsequent research, which comparators and endpoints should be included, and what length of follow up would be most valuable.

Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines: similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001; 4 (3): 225–250PubMedCrossRef

Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 2002; 360: 711–715PubMedCrossRef

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE, 2004

Department of Health (Research and Development Directorate). Best research for best health: a new national health research strategy. London: Department of Health, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/ ResearchAndDevelopment/ResearchAndDevelopmentAZ/ PrioritiesForResearch/fs/ [Accessed 2006 Sep 25]

Centres for medicare and Medicaid Services. National health expenditure data [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/ [Accessed 2006 Sep 25]

Gross CP, Anderson GF, Powe NR. The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1881–1887PubMedCrossRef

Michaud CM, Murray CJ, Bloom BR. Burden of disease: implications for future research. JAMA 2001; 285 (5): 535–539PubMedCrossRef

Townsend J, Buxton M. Cost-effectiveness scenario analysis for a proposed trial of hormone replacement therapy. Health Policy 1997; 39: 181–194PubMedCrossRef

Davies L, Drummond MF, Papanikolaou P. Prioritizing investments in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 73–91PubMedCrossRef

10.

Buxton M, Hanney S. Assessing payback from Department of Health Research and Development: second report. HERG Research Report 24. Uxbridge: Brunel University, 1997

11.

Phelps CE, Parente ST. Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care 1990; 28 (8): 703–723PubMedCrossRef

12.

Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8 (31): 1–103, iiiPubMed

13.

Claxton K, Eggington S, Ginnelly L, et al. A pilot study of using value of information analysis to support research recommendations for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Centre for Health Economics, Research Paper Series, no. 4. London: University of York, 2005

14.

Schlaifer R. Probability and statistics for business decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958

15.

Pratt J, Raiffa H, Schlaifer R. Statistical decision theory. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1995

16.

Thompson KM, Evans JS. The value of improved national exposure information for perchloroethylene (perc): a case study for dry cleaners. Risk Analysis 1997; 17: 253–271CrossRef

17.

Howard RA. Information value theory. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics 1966; SSC2: 22–26CrossRef

18.

Hammitt JK, Cave JAK. Research planning for food safety: a value of information approach. RAND publication series. Santa Monica (CA): RAND, 1991

19.

Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 342–364CrossRef

20.

Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ 1996; 5: 513–524PubMedCrossRef

21.

Yokota F, Thompson KM. Value of information literature analysis: a review of applications in health risk management. Med Decis Making 2004; 24: 287–298PubMedCrossRef

22.

Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information in medical decision modelling. Med Decis Making 2004; 24; 2: 702–228CrossRef

23.

Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, Fenwick E. Decision making with uncertainty. In: Jones AM, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. London: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2006: 514–525

24.

Claxton K, Sculpher S, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005; 14 (4): 339–348PubMedCrossRef

25.

Ades AE, Sculpher MJ, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (1): 1–19PubMedCrossRef

26.

Oakley JE. Value of information for complex cost-effectiveness models. Research report no. 533/02. Sheffiel: Department of Probability and Statistics, University of Sheffield, 2002

27.

Garthwaite PH, Kadane JB, O’Hagan A. Statistical methods for eliciting probability distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 2005; 100: 680–700CrossRef

28.

Philips Z, Claxton K, Palmer S, et al. The half-life of truth? Appropriate time horizons for value of information analysis [abstract]. Med Decis Making 2006; 25 (1): E8

29.

Ades AE, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 2006; 15 (4): 373–381PubMedCrossRef

30.

Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Research Paper Series, no. 5. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2005

Titel: Using Value of Information Analysis to Prioritise Health Research
Some Lessons from Recent UK Experience
verfasst von: Karl P. Claxton
Mark J. Sculpher
Publikationsdatum: 01.11.2006
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 11/2006
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624110-00003

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Using Value of Information Analysis to Prioritise Health Research

Some Lessons from Recent UK Experience

Abstract

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2006

Economic Evaluations in the Canadian Common Drug Review

Better Analysis for Better Decisions

Utility Measurement in Healthcare

‘Lost in Translation’

Information Created to Evade Reality (ICER)

Economic Evaluation and Decision Making in the UK