Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T15:01:28.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

USE OF VALUE OF INFORMATION IN UK HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2015

Syed Mohiuddin ,
Elisabeth Fenwick  and
Katherine Payne
Syed Mohiuddin
Affiliation:
MCHE, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester
Elisabeth Fenwick
Affiliation:
HEHTA, Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow
Katherine Payne
Affiliation:
MCHE, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, katherine.payne@manchester.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify and critically appraise the use of Value of Information (VOI) analyses undertaken as part of health technology assessment (HTA) reports in England and Wales.

Methods: A systematic review of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) funded HTA reports published between 2004 and 2013 identified the use of VOI methods and key analytical details in terms of: (i) types of VOI methodology used; (ii) parameters and key assumptions; and (iii) conclusions drawn in terms of the need for further research.

Results: A total of 512 HTA reports were published during the relevant timeframe. Of these, 203 reported systematic review and economic modeling studies and 25 of these had used VOI method(s). Over half of the twenty-five studies (n = 13) conducted both EVPI (Expected Value of Perfect Information) and EVPPI (Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information) analyses. Eight studies conducted EVPI analysis, three studies conducted EVPI, EVPPI, and EVSI (Expected Value of Sampling Information) analyses and one study conducted EVSI analysis only. The level of detail reporting the methods used to conduct the VOI analyses varied.

Conclusions: This review has shown that the frequency of the use of VOI methods is increasing at a slower pace compared with the published volume of HTA reports. This review also suggests that analysts reporting VOI method(s) in HTA reports should aim to describe the method(s) in sufficient detail to enable and encourage decision-makers guiding research prioritization decisions to use the potentially valuable outputs from quantitative VOI analyses.

Keywords

Value of informationHealth technology assessmentSystematic reviewDecision makingResearch prioritization
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , December 2014 , pp. 553 - 570
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Akehurst, RL. Making decisions on technology availability in the British National Health Service–why we need reliable models. Value Health. 2003;6:3–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Brennan, A, Chick, SE, Davies, R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ. 2006;15:1295–1310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Claxton, K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:781–798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2004. http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf (accessed November 28, 2013).Google Scholar
5. Claxton, K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: Implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ. 1999;8:269–274.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Claxton, K, Ginnelly, L, Sculpher, M, Philips, Z, Palmer, S. 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;8:1–103, iii.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Felli, JC, Hazen, GB. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:95–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Strong, M, Oakley, JE. An efficient method for computing single-parameter partial expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:755–766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Groot Koerkamp, B, Myriam Hunink, MG, Stijnen, T, Weinstein, MC. Identifying key parameters in cost-effectiveness analysis using value of information: A comparison of methods. Health Econ. 2006;15:383–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Ades, AE, Lu, G, Claxton, K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:207–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Coyle, D, Buxton, MJ, O’Brien, BJ. Measures of importance for economic analysis based on decision modeling. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:989–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Claxton, K, Thompson, KM. A dynamic programming approach to the efficient design of clinical trials. J Health Econ. 2001;20:797–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Myers, E, Sanders, GD, Ravi, D, et al. Evaluating the potential use of modeling and value-of-information analysis for future research prioritization within the evidence-based practice center program. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62134/ (accessed December 20, 2013).Google ScholarPubMed
14. Carlton, J, Karnon, J, Czoski-Murray, C, Smith, KJ, Marr, J. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes for amblyopia and strabismus in children up to the age of 4–5 years: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12: iii, xi-194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Grant, A, Wileman, S, Ramsay, C, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimal access surgery amongst people with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease - a UK collaborative study. The REFLUX trial. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12:1–181, iii-iv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. McKenna, C, Burch, J, Suekarran, S, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of aldosterone antagonists for postmyocardial infarction heart failure. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14:1–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Speight, PM, Palmer, S, Moles, DR, et al. The cost-effectiveness of screening for oral cancer in primary care. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:1–144, iii-iv.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Bhattacharya, S, Middleton, LJ, Tsourapas, A, et al. Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation and Mirena® for heavy menstrual bleeding: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15: iii-xvi, 1–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Black, C, Clar, C, Henderson, R, et al. The clinical effectiveness of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements in slowing or arresting progression of osteoarthritis of the knee: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Collins, R, Fenwick, E, Trowman, R, et al. A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11: iii-iv, xv-xviii, 1–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Fox, M, Mealing, S, Anderson, R, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronisation (biventricular pacing) for heart failure: Systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11: iii-iv, ix-248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Garside, R, Pitt, M, Somerville, M, Stein, K, Price, A, Gilbert, N. Surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus: Exploring the uncertainty through systematic review, expert workshop and economic modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:1–142, iii-iv.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. McKenna, C, McDaid, C, Suekarran, S, et al. Enhanced external counterpulsation for the treatment of stable angina and heart failure: A systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13: iii-iv, ix-xi, 1–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Thompson Coon, J, Rogers, G, Hewson, P, et al. Surveillance of cirrhosis for hepatocellular carcinoma: Systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Hewitt, C, Gilbody, S, Brealey, S, et al. Methods to identify postnatal depression in primary care: An integrated evidence synthesis and value of information analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1–145, 147–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Colbourn, T, Asseburg, C, Bojke, L, et al. Prenatal screening and treatment strategies to prevent group B streptococcal and other bacterial infections in early infancy: Cost-effectiveness and expected value of information analyses. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1–226, iii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Clegg, AJ, Loveman, E, Gospodarevskaya, E, et al. The safety and effectiveness of different methods of earwax removal: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14:1–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Brush, J, Boyd, K, Chappell, F, et al. The value of FDG positron emission tomography/computerised tomography (PET/CT) in pre-operative staging of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15:1–192, iii-iv.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Chen, Y-F, Madan, J, Welton, N, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computer and other electronic aids for smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–205, iii-v.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Castelnuovo, E, Thompson-Coon, J, Pitt, M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of testing for hepatitis C in former injecting drug users. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10: iii-iv, ix-xii, 1–93.Google Scholar
31. Robinson, M, Palmer, S, Sculpher, M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for the initial medical management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: Systematic review and decision-analytical modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9: iii-iv, ix-xi, 1–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Rodgers, M, McKenna, C, Palmer, S, et al. Curative catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation and typical atrial flutter: Systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12: iii-iv, xi-xiii, 1–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Rogowski, W, Burch, J, Palmer, S, et al. The effect of different treatment durations of clopidogrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: A systematic review and value of information analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13: iii-iv, ix-xi, 1–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Soares, MO, Welton, NJ, Harrison, DA, et al. An evaluation of the feasibility, cost and value of information of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for sepsis (severe sepsis and septic shock): Incorporating a systematic review, meta-analysis and value of information analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Harris, J, Felix, L, Miners, A, et al. Adaptive e-learning to improve dietary behaviour: A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15:1–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Pandor, A, Eastham, J, Beverley, C, Chilcott, J, Paisley, S. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8: iii, 1–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Stevenson, M, Lloyd-Jones, M, Papaioannou, D. Vitamin K to prevent fractures in older women: Systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13: iii-xi, 1–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Stevenson, MD, Scope, A, Sutcliffe, PA, et al. Group cognitive behavioural therapy for postnatal depression: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and value of information analyses. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14:1–107, iii-iv.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed