Value-of-information analysis within a stakeholder-driven research prioritization process in a US setting: an application in cancer genomics.
Value-of-information analysis within a stakeholder-driven research prioritization process in a US setting: an application in cancer genomics.
复制标题
在美国环境中，利益相关者驱动的研究优先过程中的信息分析：癌症基因组学的应用。
DOI：
10.1177/0272989x13484388
复制
发表时间：
2013-05
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Veenstra DL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carlson JJ;Thariani R;Roth J;Gralow J;Henry NL;Esmail L;Deverka P;Ramsey SD;Baker L;Veenstra DL
本研究的目的是评估在美国环境中将信息价值（VOI）分析纳入利益相关者驱动的研究优先排序过程的可行性和结果。在一个优先考虑癌症基因组学比较有效性研究领域的项目中，我们在7个月的时间里开发了决策分析模型，并计算了三个先前选择的基因组测试的上限VOI估计。代表患者倡导者、付款人、检测开发人员、监管机构、政策制定者和社区肿瘤学家的13个利益相关者在收到VOI结果之前和之后对检测进行了排名。对利益相关者进行了关于VOI调查结果的有用性和影响的调查。估计三个研究领域的VOI上限在3300万美元到28亿美元之间。7个利益相关者表示结果修改了他们的排名，9个利益相关者表示VOI数据是有用的，所有利益相关者都表示他们将支持在未来的优先排序过程中使用VOI数据。一些利益相关者指出，在评估特定的研究设计时，抽样信息的期望值可能是首选。我们的研究受到外部利益相关者群体组成的规模和潜在的选择偏倚的限制，缺乏随机设计来评估VOI数据对排名的影响，以及使用完美信息期望值与样本信息期望值的方法。信息分析的价值可能在美国比较有效性研究的研究主题优先级中发挥有意义的作用，特别是当确定不同主题领域的VOI存在巨大差异时。需要进行更多的研究，以促进在这种情况下使用更复杂的信息价值分析。
The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of incorporating value of information (VOI) analysis into a stakeholder-driven research prioritization process in a US-based setting. Within a program to prioritize comparative effectiveness research areas in cancer genomics, over a period of 7 months, we developed decision-analytic models and calculated upper-bound VOI estimates for three previously selected genomic tests. Thirteen stakeholders representing patient advocates, payers, test developers, regulators, policy-makers, and community-based oncologists ranked the tests before and after receiving VOI results. The stakeholders were surveyed about the usefulness and impact of the VOI findings. The estimated upper-bound VOI ranged from $33M to $2.8 billion for the three research areas. Seven stakeholders indicated the results modified their rankings, nine stated VOI data was useful, and all indicated they would support its use in future prioritization processes. Some stakeholders indicated expected value of sampled information might be the preferred choice when evaluating specific study designs. Our study was limited by the size and the potential for selection bias in the composition of the external stakeholder group, lack of a randomized design to assess effect of VOI data on rankings, and the use of expected value of perfect information versus expected value of sample information methods. Value of information analyses may have a meaningful role in research topic prioritization for comparative effectiveness research in the US, particularly when large differences in VOI across topic areas are identified. Additional research is needed to facilitate the use of more complex value of information analyses in this setting.