Abstract
Decisions to adopt, reimburse or issue guidance on the use of health technologies are increasingly being informed by explicit cost-effectiveness analyses of the alternative interventions. Healthcare systems also invest heavily in research and development to support these decisions. However, the increasing transparency of adoption and reimbursement decisions, based on formal analysis, contrasts sharply with research prioritisation and commissioning. This is despite the fact that formal measures of the value of evidence generated by research are readily available.
The results of two recent opportunities to apply value of information analysis to directly inform policy decisions about research priorities in the UK are presented. These include a pilot study for the UK National Co-ordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA) and a pilot study for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). We demonstrate how these results can be used to address a series of policy questions, including: is further research required to support the use of a technology and, if so, what type of research would be most valuable? We also show how the results can be used to address other questions such as, which patient subgroups should be included in subsequent research, which comparators and endpoints should be included, and what length of follow up would be most valuable.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines: similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001; 4 (3): 225–250
Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 2002; 360: 711–715
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE, 2004
Department of Health (Research and Development Directorate). Best research for best health: a new national health research strategy. London: Department of Health, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/ ResearchAndDevelopment/ResearchAndDevelopmentAZ/ PrioritiesForResearch/fs/ [Accessed 2006 Sep 25]
Centres for medicare and Medicaid Services. National health expenditure data [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/ [Accessed 2006 Sep 25]
Gross CP, Anderson GF, Powe NR. The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1881–1887
Michaud CM, Murray CJ, Bloom BR. Burden of disease: implications for future research. JAMA 2001; 285 (5): 535–539
Townsend J, Buxton M. Cost-effectiveness scenario analysis for a proposed trial of hormone replacement therapy. Health Policy 1997; 39: 181–194
Davies L, Drummond MF, Papanikolaou P. Prioritizing investments in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 73–91
Buxton M, Hanney S. Assessing payback from Department of Health Research and Development: second report. HERG Research Report 24. Uxbridge: Brunel University, 1997
Phelps CE, Parente ST. Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care 1990; 28 (8): 703–723
Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8 (31): 1–103, iii
Claxton K, Eggington S, Ginnelly L, et al. A pilot study of using value of information analysis to support research recommendations for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Centre for Health Economics, Research Paper Series, no. 4. London: University of York, 2005
Schlaifer R. Probability and statistics for business decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958
Pratt J, Raiffa H, Schlaifer R. Statistical decision theory. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1995
Thompson KM, Evans JS. The value of improved national exposure information for perchloroethylene (perc): a case study for dry cleaners. Risk Analysis 1997; 17: 253–271
Howard RA. Information value theory. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics 1966; SSC2: 22–26
Hammitt JK, Cave JAK. Research planning for food safety: a value of information approach. RAND publication series. Santa Monica (CA): RAND, 1991
Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 342–364
Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ 1996; 5: 513–524
Yokota F, Thompson KM. Value of information literature analysis: a review of applications in health risk management. Med Decis Making 2004; 24: 287–298
Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information in medical decision modelling. Med Decis Making 2004; 24; 2: 702–228
Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, Fenwick E. Decision making with uncertainty. In: Jones AM, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. London: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2006: 514–525
Claxton K, Sculpher S, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005; 14 (4): 339–348
Ades AE, Sculpher MJ, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (1): 1–19
Oakley JE. Value of information for complex cost-effectiveness models. Research report no. 533/02. Sheffiel: Department of Probability and Statistics, University of Sheffield, 2002
Garthwaite PH, Kadane JB, O’Hagan A. Statistical methods for eliciting probability distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 2005; 100: 680–700
Philips Z, Claxton K, Palmer S, et al. The half-life of truth? Appropriate time horizons for value of information analysis [abstract]. Med Decis Making 2006; 25 (1): E8
Ades AE, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 2006; 15 (4): 373–381
Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Research Paper Series, no. 5. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2005
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge all those involved in the two pilot studies that are discussed in this paper: S. Eggington, L. Ginnelly, S. Griffin, C. McCabe, S. Palmer, Z. Philips, P. Tappenden and A. Wailoo.
This work was supported by grants received from the UK Medical Research Council Health Services Research Collaboration. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Claxton, K.P., Sculpher, M.J. Using Value of Information Analysis to Prioritise Health Research. Pharmacoeconomics 24, 1055–1068 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624110-00003
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624110-00003