Experiences of Structured Elicitation for Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.
Experiences of Structured Elicitation for Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jval.2018.01.019
复制
发表时间：
2018-06
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bojke L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Soares MO;Sharples L;Morton A;Claxton K;Bojke L
支持特定卫生保健技术成本效益估算的经验证据可能有限，甚至可能完全缺失。在这些情况下，通常以专家判断的形式需要额外的信息来作出决定。有正式的方法来量化专家的信念，称为结构化专家启发（SEE），但只有有限的研究可用于支持方法选择。也许正因为如此，在成本效益模型的背景下使用SEE是有限的。本文回顾了SEE在成本效益建模中的应用，目的是总结每种应用中方法选择的基础，并记录作者在设计、实施和分析中报告的困难和挑战。每个应用程序中使用的方法与用于支持方法和实际选择以及文本中讨论的任何问题或挑战的标准一起提取。使用开放字段提取问题和挑战，然后进行分类和分组以进行报告。这篇综述显示了所使用的方法的相当大的异质性，作者承认在证明他们的选择时存在很大的方法不确定性。背景领域的特殊性在确定启发的进一步方法学研究中可能具有重要意义，在专家差异及其解释之间，该领域的实质性专家可能没有接受过定量主题的培训，通常需要对各种参数类型进行判断，需要某种形式的有效性评估，需要更多地与行为研究相结合，以制定相关的消除偏见策略。这篇对SEE经验的回顾强调了一些特殊性/限制，这些特殊性/限制可以影响该领域指导和目标未来研究工作的发展。
Empirical evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness estimates of particular health care technologies may be limited, or it may even be missing entirely. In these situations, additional information, often in the form of expert judgments, is needed to reach a decision. There are formal methods to quantify experts’ beliefs, termed as structured expert elicitation (SEE), but only limited research is available in support of methodological choices. Perhaps as a consequence, the use of SEE in the context of cost-effectiveness modelling is limited. This article reviews applications of SEE in cost-effectiveness modelling with the aim of summarizing the basis for methodological choices made in each application and recording the difficulties and challenges reported by the authors in the design, conduct, and analyses. The methods used in each application were extracted along with the criteria used to support methodological and practical choices and any issues or challenges discussed in the text. Issues and challenges were extracted using an open field, and then categorised and grouped for reporting. The review demonstrates considerable heterogeneity in methods used, and authors acknowledge great methodological uncertainty in justifying their choices. Specificities of the context area emerging as potentially important in determining further methodological research in elicitation are between- expert variation and its interpretation, the fact that substantive experts in the area may not be trained in quantitative subjects, that judgments are often needed on various parameter types, the need for some form of assessment of validity, and the need for more integration with behavioural research to devise relevant debiasing strategies. This review of experiences of SEE highlights a number of specificities/constraints that can shape the development of guidance and target future research efforts in this area.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4
作者：
Grigore B;Peters J;Hyde C;Stein K
通讯作者：
Stein K
DOI：
10.1017/s0266462307070365
发表时间：
2007-03-01
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Girling, Alan J.;Freeman, Guy;Ford, Richard J.
通讯作者：
Ford, Richard J.
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Montibeller, Gilberto;von Winterfeldt, Detlof
通讯作者：
von Winterfeldt, Detlof
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
通讯作者：
--
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Claxton, Karl
通讯作者：
Claxton, Karl