Abstract
Introduction
Decision-analytic models play an essential role in informing healthcare resource allocation decisions; however, their value to decision makers will depend on model structures being clinically valid to determine cost-effectiveness recommendations. Clinician involvement can help modellers to develop clinically valid but straightforward structures; however, there is little guidance available on methods for clinician input to model structure. This study aims to provide an in-depth exploration of clinician involvement in structural development, highlighting key issues and generating recommendations to optimise practices.
Methods
A qualitative study was undertaken with a range of modellers and clinicians working in different modelling contexts. In-depth interviews and case studies using observations were carried out to understand how clinicians are involved in model structural development and to identify problems and optimal approaches from informants’ perspectives.
Results
Twenty-four interviews and two case studies were undertaken with modellers and modelling teams. Key issues included the number and diversity of clinicians contributing to structural development, potentially impacting the generalisability of structures, and problems with clinician understanding of important information to contribute to model pathways. Modellers and clinicians suggested that clinician training in modelling could enhance structural processes.
Conclusions
Recommendations to optimise current practices include recruiting clinicians from a variety of backgrounds and using discussions between experts to develop valid and generalisable structures. Future research should focus on developing training materials for clinicians and finding ways to help modellers recruit clinicians from different settings.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Drummond M, et al. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? J Health Econ. 2006;15(7):677–87.
Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342:d1548.
Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL, Wordsworth S. Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:461–77.
Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoecon. 2006;24(4):355–71.
Sun X, Faunce T. Decision-analytical modelling in health-care economic evaluations. Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9(4):313–23.
Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, et al. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force–2. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):678–89.
McCabe C, Dixon S. Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:501–13.
Soto J. Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling: principles and practices—utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;18:94–111.
Peñaloza Ramos MC, Barton P, Jowett S, et al. A systematic review of research guidelines in decision-analytic modeling. Value Health. 2015;18(4):512–29.
Husbands S, Jowett S, Barton P, et al. How qualitative methods can be used to inform model development. PharmacoEcon. 2017;35(6):607–12.
Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Rawdin A, et al. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(25):49–62.
Kaltenthaler E, Essat M, Tappenden P, et al. Identification and review of cost-effectiveness model parameters: a qualitative study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(3):333–40.
Squires H, Chilcott J, Akehurst R, et al. A framework for developing the structure of public health economic models. Value Health. 2016;19(5):588–601.
Kuntz KM, Weinstein MC. Modelling in economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 141–71.
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.
Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2013.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed. California: Sage Publications; 2002.
Firestone WA. Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educ Res. 1993;22(4):16–23.
Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320(7226):50.
Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W. Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008;337:a1035.
Bowen GA. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qual Res. 2008;8(1):137–52.
Polit DF, Beck CT. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(11):1451–8.
Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006;12(2):219–45.
Legard R, Keegan J, Ward K. In-depth interviews. In: Richie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage Publications; 2003. p. 138–69.
Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2005.
Miles MB, Huberman AM. Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft. Edu Res. 1984;13(5):20–30.
Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl. 1965;12(4):436–45.
Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1990.
Ritchie J, Spencer L, O’Connor W. 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. 219–62.
Bojke L, Bogdan G, Jankovic D, Peters J, Soares M, Stein K. Informing reimbursement decisions using cost-effectiveness modelling: a guide to the process of generating elicited priors to capture model uncertainties. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35:867–77.
Soares MO, Sharples L, Morton A, Claxton K, Bojke L. Experiences of structured elicitation for model-based cost-effectiveness analyses. Value Health. 2018;21(6):715–23.
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.
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.
Acknowledgements
Samantha Husbands was primarily responsible for conducting and analysing the qualitative research and for the conception and drafting of the manuscript. Susan Jowett, Pelham Barton and Joanna Coast assisted with the conception of the manuscript and critically reviewed early drafts. Joanna Coast analysed a proportion of the qualitative interviews with modellers. All authors read, edited and approved the final manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
Financial support for this study was provided in part by a scholarship from the University of Birmingham, and in part by a PhD Scholarship from Universitas 21 for the Canadian element of the work.
Conflict of Interest
Samantha Husbands, Susan Jowett, Pelham Barton, and Joanna Coast declare they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethical approval was granted from the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Ethical Review Committee at the University of Birmingham and the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (references: ERN_12-1553 and H13-01796).
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Data Availability
The data generated during the current study are not publicly available due to the highly identifiable nature of the data collected from the interviewees and about the case studies.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Husbands, S., Jowett, S., Barton, P. et al. Understanding and Identifying Key Issues with the Involvement of Clinicians in the Development of Decision-Analytic Model Structures: A Qualitative Study. PharmacoEconomics 36, 1453–1462 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0705-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0705-7