Systematic narrative review of decision frameworks to select the appropriate modelling approaches for health economic evaluations

BMC Research Notes

R Goeree³  G Blackhouse²  J-E Tarride¹  J Jegathisawaran²  D O’Reilly³  B Tsoi² 

[1] Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada;PATH Research Institute, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada;Centre for Evaluation of Medicines (CEM), St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada

关键词: Compartmental models;    System dynamics;    Agent-based models;    Microsimulation;    Markov model;    State-transition models;    Decision trees;    Systematic review;    Health economic evaluation;    Decision analysis;   

Others  :  1231964
DOI  :  10.1186/s13104-015-1202-0

 received in 2014-07-19, accepted in 2015-05-20,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

In constructing or appraising a health economic model, an early consideration is whether the modelling approach selected is appropriate for the given decision problem. Frameworks and taxonomies that distinguish between modelling approaches can help make this decision more systematic and this study aims to identify and compare the decision frameworks proposed to date on this topic area.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify frameworks from peer-reviewed and grey literature sources. The following databases were searched: OVID Medline and EMBASE; Wiley’s Cochrane Library and Health Economic Evaluation Database; PubMed; and ProQuest.

Results

Eight decision frameworks were identified, each focused on a different set of modelling approaches and employing a different collection of selection criterion. The selection criteria can be categorized as either: (i) structural features (i.e. technical elements that are factual in nature) or (ii) practical considerations (i.e. context-dependent attributes). The most commonly mentioned structural features were population resolution (i.e. aggregate vs. individual) and interactivity (i.e. static vs. dynamic). Furthermore, understanding the needs of the end-users and stakeholders was frequently incorporated as a criterion within these frameworks.

Conclusions

There is presently no universally-accepted framework for selecting an economic modelling approach. Rather, each highlights different criteria that may be of importance when determining whether a modelling approach is appropriate. Further discussion is thus necessary as the modelling approach selected will impact the validity of the underlying economic model and have downstream implications on its efficiency, transparency and relevance to decision-makers.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Tsoi et al.

【 图 表 】

Figure1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, Prince RL, Sheldon TA, Szucs T, et al.: Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997, 6:217-227.
• [2]Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2006) Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies, 3rd edn. Ottawa
• [3]Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM: Modeling good research practices–overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-1. Value Health 2012, 15:796-803.
• [4]Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M: Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-2. Value Health 2012, 15:804-811.
• [5]Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, Jahn B, Owens DK, Cohen DJ, et al.: State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-3. Value Health 2012, 15:812-820.
• [6]Jit M, Brisson M: Modelling the epidemiology of infectious diseases for decision analysis: a primer. Pharmacoeconomics 2011, 29:371-386.
• [7]Heeg BM, Damen J, Buskens E, Caleo S, de CF, Van Hout BA: Modelling approaches: the case of schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26:633-648.
• [8]Kim SY, Goldie SJ: Cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccination programmes: a focused review of modelling approaches. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26:191-215.
• [9]Barton P, Bryan S, Robinson S: Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: selecting the appropriate approach. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004, 9:110-118.
• [10]Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R: A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 2006, 15:1295-1310.
• [11]Chick SE (2007) Taxonomy of model structure for health economics. http://www2.wmin.ac.uk/hscmg/qmmhealth2007/talks/Chick_S.-.IMAHealth2007.-.Keynote.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2014
• [12]Cooper K, Brailsford SC, Davies R: Choice of modelling technique for evaluating health care interventions. J Oper Res Soc 2007, 58:168-176.
• [13]Stahl JE: Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: an overview and guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26:131-148.
• [14]Groot KB, Weinstein MC, Stijnen T, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MG: Uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models. Med Decis Mak 2010, 30:194-205.
• [15]Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB: Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modelling good practices task force. Med Decis Mak 2012, 32:733-743.
• [16]Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K: Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 2000, 17:461-477.
• [17]Karnon J, Brown J: Selecting a decision model for economic evaluation: a case study and review. Health Care Manag Sci 1998, 1:133-140.
• [18]Halpern MT, Luce BR, Brown RE, Geneste B: Health and economic outcomes modeling practices: a suggested framework. Value Health 1998, 1:131-147.
• [19]Palmer AJ, Clarke P, Gray A, Leal J, Lloyd A, Grant D, et al.: Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fifth Mount Hood challenge meeting. Value Health 2013, 16:670-685.
• [20]Tsoi B, Jegathisawaran J, Tarride J-E, Blackhouse G, O’Reilly D: Do different decision-analytic modelling approaches produce different cost-effectiveness results? Insights from a systematic review of existing cross-validation studies. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2015, 15(3):451-463.