Reporting guidelines for the use of expert judgement in model-based economic evaluations

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reporting guidelines for the use of expert judgement in model-based economic evaluations

AU - Iglesias Urrutia, Cynthia Paola

AU - Thompson, ALexander

AU - Rogowski, Wolf H

AU - Payne, Katherine

N1 - © 2016, Springer International Publishing Switzerland. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details.

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Introduction: Expert judgement has a role in model-based economic evaluations (EEs) of healthcare interventions. This study aimed to produce reporting criteria for two types of study design to use expert judgement in model-based EE: (i) an expert elicitation (quantitative) study; and (ii) a Delphi study to collate (qualitative) expert opinion. Methods: A two-round online Delphi process identified the degree of consensus for four core definitions (expert; expert parameter values; expert elicitation study; expert opinion) and two sets of reporting criteria in a purposive sample of experts. The initial set of reporting criteria comprised 17 statements for reporting a study to elicit parameter values and/or distributions and 11 statements for reporting a Delphi survey to obtain expert opinion. Fifty experts were invited to become members of the Delphi process panel by e-mail. Data analysis summarised the extent of agreement (using a pre-defined 75 % ‘consensus’ threshold) on the definitions and suggested reporting criteria. Free-text comments were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: The final panel comprised 12 experts. Consensus was achieved for the definitions of expert (88 %); expert parameter values (83 %); and expert elicitation study (83 %). The panel recommended criteria to use when reporting an expert elicitation study (16 criteria) and a Delphi study to collate expert opinion (11 criteria). Conclusion: This study has produced guidelines for reporting two types of study design to use expert judgement in model-based EE: (i) an expert elicitation study requiring 16 reporting criteria; and (ii) a Delphi study to collate expert opinion requiring 11 reporting criteria.

AB - Introduction: Expert judgement has a role in model-based economic evaluations (EEs) of healthcare interventions. This study aimed to produce reporting criteria for two types of study design to use expert judgement in model-based EE: (i) an expert elicitation (quantitative) study; and (ii) a Delphi study to collate (qualitative) expert opinion. Methods: A two-round online Delphi process identified the degree of consensus for four core definitions (expert; expert parameter values; expert elicitation study; expert opinion) and two sets of reporting criteria in a purposive sample of experts. The initial set of reporting criteria comprised 17 statements for reporting a study to elicit parameter values and/or distributions and 11 statements for reporting a Delphi survey to obtain expert opinion. Fifty experts were invited to become members of the Delphi process panel by e-mail. Data analysis summarised the extent of agreement (using a pre-defined 75 % ‘consensus’ threshold) on the definitions and suggested reporting criteria. Free-text comments were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: The final panel comprised 12 experts. Consensus was achieved for the definitions of expert (88 %); expert parameter values (83 %); and expert elicitation study (83 %). The panel recommended criteria to use when reporting an expert elicitation study (16 criteria) and a Delphi study to collate expert opinion (11 criteria). Conclusion: This study has produced guidelines for reporting two types of study design to use expert judgement in model-based EE: (i) an expert elicitation study requiring 16 reporting criteria; and (ii) a Delphi study to collate expert opinion requiring 11 reporting criteria.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976492297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40273-016-0425-9

DO - 10.1007/s40273-016-0425-9

M3 - Article

SN - 1170-7690

VL - 34

SP - 1161

EP - 1172

JO - Pharmacoeconomics

JF - Pharmacoeconomics

IS - 11

ER -