Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report

J. Jaime Caro, David M. Eddy, Hongjun Kan, Cheryl Kaltz, Bimal Patel, Randa Eldessouki, Andrew H. Briggs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The evaluation of the cost and health implications of agreeing to cover a new health technology is best accomplished using a model that mathematically combines inputs from various sources, together with assumptions about how these fit together and what might happen in reality. This need to make assumptions, the complexity of the resulting framework, the technical knowledge required, as well as funding by interested parties have led many decision makers to distrust the results of models. To assist stakeholders reviewing a model's report, questions pertaining to the credibility of a model were developed. Because credibility is insufficient, questions regarding relevance of the model results were also created. The questions are formulated such that they are readily answered and they are supplemented by helper questions that provide additional detail. Some responses indicate strongly that a model should not be used for decision making: these trigger a "fatal flaw" indicator. It is hoped that the use of this questionnaire, along with the three others in the series, will help disseminate what to look for in comparative effectiveness evidence, improve practices by researchers supplying these data, and ultimately facilitate their use by health care decision makers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)174-182
Number of pages9
JournalValue in Health
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Biomedical Technology
Advisory Committees
Health Care Costs
Decision Making
Research Personnel
Delivery of Health Care
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • credibility
  • good practices
  • modeling
  • quality assurance
  • validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making : An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. / Jaime Caro, J.; Eddy, David M.; Kan, Hongjun; Kaltz, Cheryl; Patel, Bimal; Eldessouki, Randa; Briggs, Andrew H.

In: Value in Health, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2014, p. 174-182.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jaime Caro, J. ; Eddy, David M. ; Kan, Hongjun ; Kaltz, Cheryl ; Patel, Bimal ; Eldessouki, Randa ; Briggs, Andrew H. / Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making : An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. In: Value in Health. 2014 ; Vol. 17, No. 2. pp. 174-182.
@article{0c11e74763a947eea6e34d02ea32ce33,
title = "Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report",
abstract = "The evaluation of the cost and health implications of agreeing to cover a new health technology is best accomplished using a model that mathematically combines inputs from various sources, together with assumptions about how these fit together and what might happen in reality. This need to make assumptions, the complexity of the resulting framework, the technical knowledge required, as well as funding by interested parties have led many decision makers to distrust the results of models. To assist stakeholders reviewing a model's report, questions pertaining to the credibility of a model were developed. Because credibility is insufficient, questions regarding relevance of the model results were also created. The questions are formulated such that they are readily answered and they are supplemented by helper questions that provide additional detail. Some responses indicate strongly that a model should not be used for decision making: these trigger a {"}fatal flaw{"} indicator. It is hoped that the use of this questionnaire, along with the three others in the series, will help disseminate what to look for in comparative effectiveness evidence, improve practices by researchers supplying these data, and ultimately facilitate their use by health care decision makers.",
keywords = "credibility, good practices, modeling, quality assurance, validity",
author = "{Jaime Caro}, J. and Eddy, {David M.} and Hongjun Kan and Cheryl Kaltz and Bimal Patel and Randa Eldessouki and Briggs, {Andrew H.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "174--182",
journal = "Value in Health",
issn = "1098-3015",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making

T2 - An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report

AU - Jaime Caro, J.

AU - Eddy, David M.

AU - Kan, Hongjun

AU - Kaltz, Cheryl

AU - Patel, Bimal

AU - Eldessouki, Randa

AU - Briggs, Andrew H.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The evaluation of the cost and health implications of agreeing to cover a new health technology is best accomplished using a model that mathematically combines inputs from various sources, together with assumptions about how these fit together and what might happen in reality. This need to make assumptions, the complexity of the resulting framework, the technical knowledge required, as well as funding by interested parties have led many decision makers to distrust the results of models. To assist stakeholders reviewing a model's report, questions pertaining to the credibility of a model were developed. Because credibility is insufficient, questions regarding relevance of the model results were also created. The questions are formulated such that they are readily answered and they are supplemented by helper questions that provide additional detail. Some responses indicate strongly that a model should not be used for decision making: these trigger a "fatal flaw" indicator. It is hoped that the use of this questionnaire, along with the three others in the series, will help disseminate what to look for in comparative effectiveness evidence, improve practices by researchers supplying these data, and ultimately facilitate their use by health care decision makers.

AB - The evaluation of the cost and health implications of agreeing to cover a new health technology is best accomplished using a model that mathematically combines inputs from various sources, together with assumptions about how these fit together and what might happen in reality. This need to make assumptions, the complexity of the resulting framework, the technical knowledge required, as well as funding by interested parties have led many decision makers to distrust the results of models. To assist stakeholders reviewing a model's report, questions pertaining to the credibility of a model were developed. Because credibility is insufficient, questions regarding relevance of the model results were also created. The questions are formulated such that they are readily answered and they are supplemented by helper questions that provide additional detail. Some responses indicate strongly that a model should not be used for decision making: these trigger a "fatal flaw" indicator. It is hoped that the use of this questionnaire, along with the three others in the series, will help disseminate what to look for in comparative effectiveness evidence, improve practices by researchers supplying these data, and ultimately facilitate their use by health care decision makers.

KW - credibility

KW - good practices

KW - modeling

KW - quality assurance

KW - validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84896339928&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84896339928&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 24636375

AN - SCOPUS:84896339928

VL - 17

SP - 174

EP - 182

JO - Value in Health

JF - Value in Health

SN - 1098-3015

IS - 2

ER -