Skip to main content

How Qualitative Methods Can be Used to Inform Model Development

PharmacoEconomics volume 35, pages 607–612 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Decision-analytic models play a key role in informing healthcare resource allocation decisions. However, there are ongoing concerns with the credibility of models. Modelling methods guidance can encourage good practice within model development, but its value is dependent on its ability to address the areas that modellers find most challenging. Further, it is important that modelling methods and related guidance are continually updated in light of any new approaches that could potentially enhance model credibility. The objective of this article was to highlight the ways in which qualitative methods have been used and recommended to inform decision-analytic model development and enhance modelling practices. With reference to the literature, the article discusses two key ways in which qualitative methods can be, and have been, applied. The first approach involves using qualitative methods to understand and inform general and future processes of model development, and the second, using qualitative techniques to directly inform the development of individual models. The literature suggests that qualitative methods can improve the validity and credibility of modelling processes by providing a means to understand existing modelling approaches that identifies where problems are occurring and further guidance is needed. It can also be applied within model development to facilitate the input of experts to structural development. We recommend that current and future model development would benefit from the greater integration of qualitative methods, specifically by studying ‘real’ modelling processes, and by developing recommendations around how qualitative methods can be adopted within everyday modelling practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

49,54 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Coast J. The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics. Health Econ. 1999;8(4):345–53.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Obermann K, Scheppe J, Glazinski B. More than figures? Qualitative research in health economics. Health Econ. 2013;22:253–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Drummond M, McCabe C. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ. 2006;15:677–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342:d1766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):355–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Penaloza Ramos MC, Barton P, Jowett S, Sutton AJ. A systematic review of research guidelines in decision-analytic modeling. Value Health. 2015;18:512–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications; 2000. p. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Miller WL, Crabtree BF. Clinical research: a mulitmethod typology and qualitative roundmap. In: Miller WL, Crabtree BF, editors. Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications; 1999. p. 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358:483–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Silverman D. Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. London: SAGE Publications; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications; 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Flick U, von Kardorff E, Steinke I. What is qualitative research? An introduction to the field. In: Flick U, von Kardorff E, Steinke I, editors. A companion to qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications; 2004. p. 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bryman A. Social research methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mays N, Pope C. Qualiative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320:50–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bowen GA. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qual Res. 2008;8(1):137–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaltenthaler EC, Dickson R, Boland A, et al. A qualitative study of manufacturers’ submissions to the UK NICE single technology appraisal process. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e000562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaltenthaler E, Tappenden P, Paisley S. Reviewing the evidence to inform the population of cost-effectiveness models within health technology assessments. Value Health. 2013;16(5):830–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaltenthaler E, Essat M, Tappenden P, Paisley S. Identification and review of cost-effectiveness model parameters: a qualitative study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(3):333–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Rawdin A, et al. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(25):iii–iv, ix–xii, 1–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Husbands S. A qualitative analysis of the model-building process. University of Birmingham; 2016. Available from: http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/6829/1/Husbands16PhD.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2016.

  23. Husbands S, Jowett S, Barton P, Coast J. Using non-participant observation and think-aloud to understand and improve modelling processes. In: Coast J, editor. Qualitative methods for health economics. London: Rowman and Littlefield International; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Squires H, Chilcott J, Akehurst R, et al. Methodology: a framework for developing the structure of public health economic models. Value Health. 2016;19(5):588–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bowen GA. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J. 2009;9(2):27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications; 1997.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Finch H, Lewis J. Focus groups. In: Richie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications; 2003. p. 170–98.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Legard R, Keegan J, Ward K. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. In: Richie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications; 2003. p. 138–69.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sullivan W, Payne K. The appropriate elicitation of expert opinion in economic models: making expert data fit for purpose. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(6):455–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Iglesias CP, Thompson A, Rogowski WH, Payne K. Reporting guidelines for the use of expert judgement in model-based economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(11):1161–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;5(311):376–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. 2003;41(4):376–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(4):1008–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995;29(311):299–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, et al. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-2. Value Health. 2012;15:804–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Merkens H. Selection procedures, sampling, case construction. In: Flick U, von Kardorff E, Steinke I, editors. A companion to qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications; 2004. p. 165–71.

    Google Scholar 

  38. van Voorn GAK, Vemer P, Hamerlijnck D, et al. The Missing Stakeholder Group: why patients should be involved in health economic modelling. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14:129–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Acknowledgements

Samantha Husbands was primarily responsible for reviewing the literature and writing the manuscript, with support from, Susan Jowett, Pelham Barton and Joanna Coast. All authors read, edited and approved the final manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK

    Samantha Husbands & Joanna Coast

  2. Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Susan Jowett & Pelham Barton

Authors
  1. Samantha Husbands
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Jowett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pelham Barton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joanna Coast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samantha Husbands.

Ethics declarations

Funding

The preparation of this review was in part funded by a college studentship obtained by Samantha Husbands through the University of Birmingham.

Conflict of interest

Samantha Husbands, Susan Jowett, Pelham Barton and Joanna Coast declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Husbands, S., Jowett, S., Barton, P. et al. How Qualitative Methods Can be Used to Inform Model Development. PharmacoEconomics 35, 607–612 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0499-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0499-z