The Authors' Reply: Comment on "Healthy Decisions: Towards Uncertainty Tolerance in Healthcare Policy"

Moderators uncertainty tolerance (UT) in healthcare: a systematic review

Uncertainty tolerance (UT) is integral to healthcare. Providers' responses to medical uncertainty has ramifications on the healthcare system, the healthcare provider and the patient. Understanding healthcare providers' UT, is important for improving patient-care outcomes. Understanding whether and to what extent it is possible to modulate individuals' perceptions and responses to medical uncertainty, can provide insights into mechanisms for support for training and education. The objectives of this review were to further characterize moderators of healthcare UT and explore moderator influences on the perceptions and responses to uncertainty experienced by healthcare professionals. Framework analysis of qualitative primary literature was conducted on 17 articles, focusing on the impacts of UT on healthcare providers. Three domains of moderators were identified and characterized relating to the healthcare provider's personal attributes, patient-derived uncertainty and the healthcare system. These domains were further categorized into themes and subthemes. Results suggest these moderators influence perceptions and responses to healthcare uncertainty across a spectrum ranging from positive to negative to uncertain. In this way, UT could be a state-based construct within healthcare settings and is contextually determined. Our findings further characterize the integrative model of uncertainty tolerance (IMUT) (Hillen Social Science and Medicine 180, 62-75, 2017) and provide evidence for the relationship between moderators and their influences on cognitive, emotional and behavioral responses to uncertainty. These findings provide a foundation for understanding the complex nature of the UT construct, add to theory development, and provide groundwork for future research exploring appropriate support for training and education in healthcare fields.

Comprehensive Review of Methods to Assess Uncertainty in Health Economic Evaluations

Uncertainty assessment is a cornerstone in model-based health economic evaluations (HEEs) that inform reimbursement decisions. No comprehensive overview of available uncertainty assessment methods currently exists. We aimed to review methods for uncertainty assessment for use in model-based HEEs, by conducting a snowballing review. We categorised all methods according to their stage of use relating to uncertainty assessment (identification, analysis, communication). Additionally, we classified identification methods according to sources of uncertainty, and subdivided analysis and communication methods according to their purpose. The review identified a total of 80 uncertainty methods: 30 identification, 28 analysis, and 22 communication methods. Uncertainty identification methods exist to address uncertainty from different sources. Most identification methods were developed with the objective to assess related concepts such as validity, model quality, and relevance. Almost all uncertainty analysis and communication methods required uncertainty to be quantified and inclusion of uncertainties in probabilistic analysis. Our review can help analysts and decision makers in selecting uncertainty assessment methods according to their aim and purpose of the assessment. We noted a need for further clarification of terminology and guidance on the use of (combinations of) methods to identify uncertainty and related concepts such as validity and quality. A key finding is that uncertainty assessment relies heavily on quantification, which may necessitate increased use of expert elicitation and/or the development of methods to assess unquantified uncertainty.

Dealing With Uncertainty in Early Health Technology Assessment: An Exploration of Methods for Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty

OBJECTIVES

In early stages, the consequences of innovations are often unknown or deeply uncertain, which complicates early health economic modeling (EHEM). The field of decision making under deep uncertainty uses exploratory modeling (EM) in situations when the system model, input probabilities/distributions, and consequences are unknown or debated. Our aim was to evaluate the use of EM for early evaluation of health technologies.

METHODS

We applied EM and EHEM to an early evaluation of minimally invasive endoscopy-guided surgery (MIS) for acute intracerebral hemorrhage and compared these models to derive differences, merits, and drawbacks of EM.

RESULTS

EHEM and EM differ fundamentally in how uncertainty is handled. Where in EHEM the focus is on the value of technology, while accounting for the uncertainty, EM focuses on the uncertainty. EM aims to find robust strategies, which give relatively good outcomes over a wide range of plausible futures. This was reflected in our case study. EHEM provided cost-effectiveness thresholds for MIS effectiveness, assuming fixed MIS costs. EM showed that a policy with a population in which most patients had severe intracerebral hemorrhage was most robust, regardless of MIS effectiveness, complications, and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

EHEM and EM were found to complement each other. EM seems most suited in the very early phases of innovation to explore existing uncertainty and many potential strategies. EHEM seems most useful to optimize promising strategies, yet EM methods are complex and might only add value when stakeholders are willing to consider multiple solutions to a problem and adopt flexible research and adoption strategies.

State of the ART? Two New Tools for Risk Communication in Health Technology Assessments

PURPOSE

Outcomes of health technology assessments (HTA) are uncertain, and decision-making is associated with a risk. This risk, consisting of the probability of making a wrong decision and its impact, is rarely considered in HTA. This hampers transparent and consistent risk assessment and management. The aim of this study was to develop risk communication tools in the context of health technology decision-making under uncertainty.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review of tools for uncertainty and risk communication within HTA using citation pearl-growing. We developed two tools, drawing on existing publications on risk and uncertainty communication for inspiration. Individual semi-structured interviews with HTA stakeholders were performed to identify potential improvements in usefulness, user-friendliness, and information adequacy. Tools were amended and further evaluated in a real-world HTA and workshop with HTA stakeholders.

RESULTS

The identified risk communication tools did not include non-quantified uncertainties, and did not link to risk management strategies. We developed two tools: the Assessment of Risk Table (ART), for a summary of quantified and non-quantified uncertainties and the resulting risk assessment, and the Appraisal of Risk Chart (ARCH), for linking net benefit and risk outcomes to appropriate risk management strategies. Stakeholders appreciated the usefulness of the tools. They also highlighted that more information on local policy options was required for optimal risk management use, and HTA processes may need adapting.

CONCLUSION

The risk communication tools presented here can help assess risk, facilitate communication between analysts and decision-makers, and guide the appropriate use of available risk management strategies.

Exploring the Feasibility of Comprehensive Uncertainty Assessment in Health Economic Modeling: A Case Study

OBJECTIVES

Decision makers adopt health technologies based on health economic models that are subject to uncertainty. In an ideal world, these models parameterize all uncertainties and reflect them in the cost-effectiveness probability and risk associated with the adoption. In practice, uncertainty assessment is often incomplete, potentially leading to suboptimal reimbursement recommendations and risk management. This study examines the feasibility of comprehensive uncertainty assessment in health economic models.

METHODS

A state transition model on peripheral arterial disease treatment was used as a case study. Uncertainties were identified and added to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis if possible. Parameter distributions were obtained by expert elicitation, and structural uncertainties were either parameterized or explored in scenario analyses, which were model averaged.

RESULTS

A truly comprehensive uncertainty assessment, parameterizing all uncertainty, could not be achieved. Expert elicitation informed 8 effectiveness, utility, and cost parameters. Uncertainties were parameterized or explored in scenario analyses and with model averaging. Barriers included time and resource constraints, also of clinical experts, and lacking guidance regarding some aspects of expert elicitation, evidence aggregation, and handling of structural uncertainty. The team's multidisciplinary expertise and existing literature and tools were facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

While comprehensive uncertainty assessment may not be attainable, improvements in uncertainty assessment in general are no doubt desirable. This requires the development of detailed guidance and hands-on tutorials for methods of uncertainty assessment, in particular aspects of expert elicitation, evidence aggregation, and handling of structural uncertainty. The issue of benefits of uncertainty assessment versus time and resources needed remains unclear.

Uncertainty tolerance among experts involved in drug reimbursement recommendations: Qualitative evidence from HTA committees in Canada and Poland

OBJECTIVES

Drug reimbursement decisions often rely on health technology assessment (HTA). Increasingly, new drugs have limited clinical evidence and uncertain clinical benefit. Our goal was to describe how members of drug advisory committees and other stakeholders conceptualize and tolerate uncertainty and how they rationalize uncertainty tolerance.

METHODS

Our triangulated parallel design applied two qualitative methods. We interviewed 31 members of drug advisory committees in Canada and Poland about their information needs and included hypothetical scenarios with uncertain clinical benefits. Respondents speculated about their likely reimbursement recommendation. We analyzed written recommendations of the pan Canadian Oncology Drug Review for drugs with uncertain benefit and compared initial recommendations to the responses from patient and clinician groups.

RESULTS

Uncertainty tolerance varied among committee members and across jurisdictions. In the scenario analysis, 7 Canadian and 11 Polish respondents leaned against recommending a hypothetical drug with uncertain clinical benefit, whereas 5 Canadian and 5 Polish respondents leaned in favour. Those against rationalized that uncertainty increases potential harm; those in favour rationalized that patients often have no alternatives. The document analysis revealed that patients had higher uncertainty tolerance in general.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty tolerance varies among committee members and other stakeholders depending on their backgrounds and on the decision contexts. We argue that policy guidance around uncertainty management could improve the transparency and consistency of recommendations.

Development and Validation of the TRansparent Uncertainty ASsessmenT (TRUST) Tool for Assessing Uncertainties in Health Economic Decision Models

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of technologies are obtaining marketing authorisation based on sparse evidence, which causes growing uncertainty and risk within health technology reimbursement decision making. To ensure that uncertainty is considered and addressed within health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations, uncertainties need to be identified, included in health economic models, and reported.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to develop the TRansparent Uncertainty ASsessmenT (TRUST) tool for systematically identifying, assessing, and reporting uncertainties in decision models, with the aim of making uncertainties and their impact on cost effectiveness more explicit and transparent.

METHODS

TRUST was developed by drawing on the uncertainty and risk assessment literature. To develop and validate this tool, we conducted HTA stakeholder discussion meetings and interviews and applied it in six real-world HTA case studies in the Netherlands and the UK.

RESULTS

The TRUST tool enables the identification and categorisation of uncertainty according to its source (transparency issues, methodology issues, and issues with evidence: imprecision, bias and indirectness, and unavailability) in each model aspect. The source of uncertainty determines the appropriate analysis. The impact of uncertainties on cost effectiveness is also assessed. Stakeholders found using the tool to be feasible and of value for transparent uncertainty assessment. TRUST can be used during model development and/or model review.

CONCLUSION

The TRUST tool enables systematic identification, assessment, and reporting of uncertainties in health economic models and may contribute to more informed and transparent decision making in the face of uncertainty.

Clarity, confidence and complexity: Learning from mental health nurses' experiences of events involving physiological deterioration of consumers in acute inpatient mental health settings

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

To capture the experiences of nurses in relation to the acutely physiologically deteriorating consumer.

BACKGROUND

Improving the physical health care of consumers with mental illness has been widely adopted as a priority for mental health nursing. Much of the effort thus far has focused on routine screening, prevention and treatment of common comorbidities including cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and cancer. There has been less focus on the acutely physiologically deteriorating consumer in the mental health setting. Further study is warranted since this issue poses a set of highly complex challenges for nurses within the inpatient setting.

METHOD

An exploratory, descriptive study was employed using focus groups to gather narrative data, which was then subject to qualitative analysis. Eleven mental health inpatient wards within a local health district in Sydney, Australia, were studied, comprising ward-based nurses (n = 64) and nurse unit managers (n = 8). This paper follows the COREQ guidelines for reporting qualitative health research.

RESULTS

Qualitative data analysis revealed three themes central to the nurses' experience: (a) lack of clarity (subthemes: procedures and leadership accountability); (b) confidence in the workforce (subthemes: knowledge and skills, training needs, relevant experience, collaboration with emergency and medical teams, stigmatising attitudes); and (c) complexity (subthemes: complexity as the new norm and suitability of the mental health environment).

CONCLUSION

The themes found in this study can be used to guide and inform healthcare policy, protocols, education and processes around building a more confident nurse workforce for the acutely physiologically deteriorating consumer.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Findings provide a rich data set for the generation of measurement tools and protocols to guide physical health care and evaluate performance.

Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling

BACKGROUND

To assess whether early health economic modeling helps to distinguish those healthcare innovations that are potentially cost-effective from those that are not potentially cost-effective. We will also study what information is retrieved from the health economic models to inform further development, research and implementation decisions.

METHODS

We performed secondary analyses on an existing database of 32 health economic modeling assessments of 30 innovations, performed by our group. First, we explored whether the assessments could distinguish innovations with potential cost-effectiveness from innovations without potential cost-effectiveness. Second, we explored which recommendations were made regarding development, implementation and further research of the innovation.

RESULTS

Of the 30 innovations, 1 (3%) was an idea that was not yet being developed and 14 (47%) were under development. Eight (27%) innovations had finished development, and another 7 (23%) innovations were on the market. Although all assessments showed that the innovation had the potential to become cost-effective, due to improved patient outcomes, cost savings or both, differences were found in the magnitude of the potential benefits, and the likelihood of reaching this potential. The assessments informed how the innovation could be further developed or positioned to maximize its cost-effectiveness, and informed further research.

CONCLUSION

The early health economic assessments provided insight in the potential cost-effectiveness of an innovation in its intended context, and the associated uncertainty. None of the assessments resulted in a firm 'no-go' recommendation, but recommendations could be provided on further research and development in order to maximize value for money.

Uncertainty and Coverage With Evidence Development: Does Practice Meet Theory?

OBJECTIVES

In theory, a successful coverage with evidence development (CED) scheme is one that addresses the most important uncertainties in a given assessment. We investigated the following: (1) which uncertainties were present during the initial assessment of 3 Dutch CED cases, (2) how these uncertainties were integrated in the initial assessments, (3) whether CED research plans included the identified uncertainties, and (4) issues with managing uncertainty in CED research and ways forward from these issues.

METHODS

Three CED initial assessment dossiers were analyzed and 16 stakeholders were interviewed. Uncertainties were identified in interviews and dossiers and were categorized in different causes: unavailability, indirectness, and imprecision of evidence. Identified uncertainties could be mentioned, described, and explored. Issues and ways forward to address uncertainty in CED schemes were discussed during the interviews.

RESULTS

Forty-two uncertainties were identified. Thirteen (31%) were caused by unavailability, 17 (40%) by indirectness, and 12 (29%) by imprecision. Thirty-four uncertainties (81%) were only mentioned, 19 (45%) were described, and the impact of 3 (7%) uncertainties on the results was explored in the assessment dossiers. Seventeen uncertainties (40%) were included in the CED research plans. According to stakeholders, research did not address the identified uncertainty, but CED research should be designed to focus on these.

CONCLUSIONS

In practice, uncertainties were neither systematically nor completely identified in the analyzed CED schemes. A framework would help to systematically identify uncertainty, and this process should involve all stakeholders. Value of information analysis, and the uncertainties that are not included in this analysis should inform CED research design.

Value of Information Choices that Influence Estimates: A Systematic Review of Prevailing Considerations

Background. Although value of information (VOI) analyses are increasingly advocated and used for research prioritization and reimbursement decisions, the interpretation and usefulness of VOI outcomes depend critically on the underlying choices and assumptions used in the analysis. In this article, we present a structured overview of all items reported in literature to potentially influence VOI outcomes. Use of this overview increases awareness and transparency of choices and assumptions underpinning VOI outcomes. Methods. A systematic literature review was performed to identify aspects of VOI analyses that were found to potentially influence VOI outcomes. Identified aspects were grouped to develop a structured overview. Explanations were defined for all items included in the overview. Results. We retrieved 687 unique papers, of which 71 original papers and 8 reviews were included. In the full text of these 79 papers, 16 aspects were found that may influence VOI outcomes. These aspects related to the underlying evidence (bias, synthesis, heterogeneity, correlation), uncertainty (structural, future pricing), model (relevance, approach, population), choices in VOI calculation (estimation technique, implementation level, population size, perspective), and aspects specifically for assessing the value of future study designs (reversal costs, efficient estimator). These aspects were aggregated into 7 items to provide a structured overview. Conclusion. The developed overview should increase awareness of key choices underlying VOI analysis and facilitate structured reporting of such choices and interpretation of the ensuing VOI outcomes by researchers and policy makers. Use of this overview should improve prioritization and reimbursement decisions.

The Australian Managed Entry Scheme: Are We Getting it Right?

In 2010, the Australian Government introduced the managed entry scheme (MES) to improve patient access to subsidised drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and enhance the quality of evidence provided to decision makers. The aim of this paper was to critically review the Australian MES experience. We performed a comprehensive review of publicly available Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee online documents from January 2010 to July 2017. Relevant information on each MES agreement was systematically extracted, including its rationale, the conditions that guided its implementation and its policy outcomes. We identified 11 drugs where an MES was considered. Most of the identified drugs (75%) were antineoplastic agents and the main uncertainty was the overall survival benefit. More than half of the MES proposals were made by sponsors and most of the schemes were considered after previous rejected/deferred submissions for reimbursement. An MES was not established in 8 of 11 drugs (73%) despite the high evidence uncertainty. Nevertheless, six of these eight drugs were listed after the sponsors reduced their prices. Three MESs were established and implemented by Deeds of Agreement. The three cases were concluded and the required data were submitted within the agreed time frames. The need for feasibility and value of an MES should be carefully considered by stakeholders before embarking on such an agreement. It is essential to engage major stakeholders, including patient representatives, in this process. The conditions governing MESs should be clear, transparent and balanced to address the expectations of various stakeholders.

"There is always a better way": Managing uncertainty in decision making about new cancer drugs in Canada

Policy decisions about the approval and funding of new cancer drugs must often be made in an environment of complex uncertainty about clinical and cost-effectiveness data. The focus of this article is on the results from qualitative interviews with senior officials (n = 16) who make decisions about or influence cancer drug policy in various organizations in the Canadian cancer control system. Most participants identified the use of a limited number of informal approaches to address uncertainty, such as grounding decisions in evidence and advice from expert groups. People tended to focus on evidence informed decisions including price negotiations, the ability to implement policy changes, and stakeholder values. Lessons from the Canadian context related to continuing efforts to build a public culture of understanding into how policy decisions like cancer drug funding are made may result in greater acceptance and increased confidence in health policy decision-making processes across multiple sectors internationally.

THE GAP BETWEEN ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS ON DABIGATRAN FOR ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

OBJECTIVES

As model-based economic evaluations (MBEEs) are widely used to make decisions in the context of policy, it is imperative that they represent clinical practice. Here, we assess the relevance of MBEEs on dabigatran for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review on the basis of a developed questionnaire, tailored to oral anticoagulation in patients with AF. Included studies had a full body text in English, compared dabigatran with a vitamin K antagonist, were not dedicated to one or more subgroup(s), and yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The relevance of all MBEEs was assessed on the basis of ten context-independent factors, which encompassed clinical outcomes and treatment duration. The MBEEs performed for the United States were assessed on the basis of seventeen context-dependent factors, which were related to the country's target population and clinical environment.

RESULTS

The search yielded twenty-nine MBEEs, of which six were performed for the United States. On average, 54 percent of the context-independent factors were included per study, and 37 percent of the seventeen context-dependent factors in the U.S.

STUDIES

The share of relevant factors per study did not increase over time.

CONCLUSIONS

MBEEs on dabigatran leave out several relevant factors, limiting their usefulness to decision makers. We strongly urge health economic researchers to improve the relevance of their MBEEs by including context-independent relevance factors, and modeling context-dependent factors befitting the decision context concerned.

What factors determine the choice of public engagement undertaken by health technology assessment decision-making organizations?

Purpose Public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly considered crucial for good decision making. Determining the "right" type of engagement activity is key in achieving the appropriate consideration of public values. Little is known about the factors that determine how HTA organizations (HTAOs) decide on their method of public engagement, and there are a number of possible factors that might shape these decisions. The purpose of this paper is to understand the potential drivers of public engagement from an organizational perspective. Design/methodology/approach The published HTA literature is reviewed alongside existing frameworks of public engagement in order to elucidate key factors influencing the choice of public engagement process undertaken by HTAOs. A conceptual framework is then developed to illustrate the factors identified from the literature that appear to influence public engagement choice. Findings Determining the type of public engagement undertaken in HTA is based on multiple factors, some of which are not always explicitly acknowledged. These factors included the: perceived complexity of the policy-making issue, perceived impact of the decision, transparency and opportunities for public involvement in governance, as well as time and resource constraints. The influences of these factors vary depending on the context, indicating that a one size fits all approach to public engagement may not be effective. Originality/value Awareness of the various factors that might influence the type of public engagement undertaken would enable decision makers to reflect on their choices and be more accountable and transparent about their choice of engagement process in eliciting public values and preferences in a HTAO.

The development of scientific evidence for health policies for obesity: why and how?

Potential obesity-related policy approaches have recently been receiving more attention. Although some have been implemented and others only proposed, few have been formally evaluated. We discuss the relevance, and in some cases irrelevance, of some of the types of evidence that are often brought to bear in considering obesity-related policy decisions. We discuss major methods used to generate such evidence, emphasizing study design and the varying quality of the evidence obtained. Third, we consider what the standards of evidence should be in various contexts, who ought to set those standards, as well as the inherent subjectivity involved in making policy decisions. Finally, we suggest greater transparency from both academics and policymakers in the acknowledgment of subjectivities so they can distinguish and communicate the roles of empirical evidence and subjective values in the formulation of policy.

Value of Information Analysis Informing Adoption and Research Decisions in a Portfolio of Health Care Interventions

Background: Value of information (VOI) analysis quantifies the value of additional research in reducing decision uncertainty. It addresses adoption and research decisions simultaneously by comparing the expected benefits and costs of research studies. Nevertheless, the application of this approach in practice remains limited. Objectives: To apply VOI analysis in health care interventions to guide adoption decisions, optimize trial design, and prioritize research. Methods: The analysis was from the perspective of Queensland Health, Australia. It included four interventions: clinically indicated catheter replacement, tissue adhesive for securing catheters, negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in caesarean sections, and nutritional support for preventing pressure ulcers. For each intervention, cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, decision uncertainty characterized, and VOI calculated using Monte Carlo simulations. The benefits and costs of additional research were considered together with the costs and consequences of acting now versus waiting for more information. All values are reported in 2014 Australian dollars (AU$). Results: All interventions were cost-effective, but with various levels of decision uncertainty. The current evidence is sufficient to support the adoption of clinically indicated catheter replacement. For the tissue adhesive, an additional study before adoption is worthwhile with a four-arm trial of 220 patients per arm. Additional research on NPWT before adoption is worthwhile with a two-arm trial of 200 patients per arm. Nutritional support should be adopted with a two-arm trial of 1200 patients per arm. Based on the expected net monetary benefits, the studies were ranked as follows: 1) NPWT (AU$1.2 million), 2) tissue adhesive (AU$0.3 milliion), and 3) nutritional support (AU$0.1 million). Conclusions: VOI analysis is a useful and practical approach to inform adoption and research decisions. Efforts should be focused on facilitating its integration into decision making frameworks.

Exploring Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations of Drugs and Medical Devices: Lessons from the First Review of Manufacturers' Submissions to the French National Authority for Health

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this paper was to evaluate how uncertainty has been accounted for in the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) submitted by manufacturers to the French National Authority for Health (HAS) and to identify recurring concerns in these submissions.

METHODS

We used a cross-sectional design to evaluate manufacturers' submissions from the beginning of the evaluation process in October 2013 to the end of May 2015 (n = 28). The sources of uncertainty attached to these CEAs were categorized and assessed. Relevant data were extracted independently by two assessors.

RESULTS

Adherence to the HAS reference case was generally considered to be acceptable. Methodological uncertainty and parameter uncertainty were the sources of uncertainty that were most frequently explored by manufacturers. The quality of reporting of deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis varied substantially across submissions, with a frequent lack of justification of the plausible range of parameter point estimates in 12 submissions (43 %). Structural uncertainty was explored much less frequently. Concerns related to omission of either important clinical events or relevant health states or extrapolation of the effects of the technology beyond the time horizon of the clinical trials were identified in 16 submissions (57 %).

CONCLUSIONS

This study presented a characterization of the treatment of uncertainty for the first 28 manufacturers' submissions to the HAS. This work identified important concerns regarding the exploration of sources of uncertainty. The findings may help manufacturers to improve the quality of their submissions and may provide useful insights for extending guidelines on uncertainty analysis in CEAs submitted to the HAS.

Preferences for engagement in health technology assessment decision-making: a nominal group technique with members of the public

OBJECTIVE

To identify characteristics (factors) about health technology assessment (HTA) decisions that are important to the public in determining whether public engagement should be undertaken and the reasons for these choices.

DESIGN

Focus groups using a nominal group technique to identify and rank factors relevant to public engagement in HTA decision-making. Thematic analysis was also undertaken to describe reasons underpinning participants' choices and rankings.

SETTING

Members of the Australian general public.

PARTICIPANTS

58 people, aged 19-71 years participated in 6 focus groups.

RESULTS

24 factors were identified by participants that were considered important in determining whether public engagement should be undertaken. These factors were individually ranked and grouped into 4 themes to interpret preferences for engagement. Members of the public were more likely to think public engagement was needed when trade-offs between benefits and costs were required to determine 'value', uncertainties in the evidence were present, and family members and/or carers were impacted. The role of public engagement was also seen as important if the existent system lacked transparency and did not provide a voice for patients, particularly for conditions less known in the community.

CONCLUSIONS

Members of the public considered value, impact, uncertainty, equity and transparency in determining when engagement should be undertaken. This indicates that the public's preferences on when to undertake engagement relate to both the content of the HTA itself as well as the processes in place to support HTA decision-making. By understanding these preferences, decision-makers can work towards more effective, meaningful public engagement by involving the public in issues that are important to them and/or improving the processes around decision-making.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy compared with cognitive-behavioural therapy and combination therapy for the treatment of moderate to severe depression in the UK

BACKGROUND

The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales recommends the combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for the treatment of moderate to severe depression. However, the cost-effectiveness analysis on which these recommendations are based has not included psychotherapy as monotherapy as a potential option. For this reason, we aimed to update, augment and refine the existing economic evaluation.

METHOD

We constructed a decision analytic model with a 27-month time horizon. We compared pharmacotherapy with cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and combination treatment for moderate to severe depression in secondary care from a healthcare service perspective. We reviewed the literature to identify relevant evidence and, where possible, synthesized evidence from clinical trials in a meta-analysis to inform model parameters.

RESULTS

The model suggested that CBT as monotherapy was most likely to be the most cost-effective treatment option above a threshold of £ 22,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). It dominated combination treatment and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £ 20,039 per QALY compared with pharmacotherapy. There was significant decision uncertainty in the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to previous NICE guidance, the results indicated that even for those patients for whom pharmacotherapy is acceptable, CBT as monotherapy may be a cost-effective treatment option. However, this conclusion was based on a limited evidence base, particularly for combination treatment. In addition, this evidence cannot easily be transferred to a primary care setting.

Cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis of nutritional support for preventing pressure ulcers in high-risk patients: implement now, research later

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are a major cause of mortality, morbidity, and increased healthcare cost. Nutritional support may reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients who are at risk of pressure ulcer and malnutrition.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nutritional support in preventing pressure ulcers in high-risk hospitalised patients, and to assess the value of further research to inform the decision to implement this intervention using value of information analysis (VOI).

METHODS

The analysis was from the perspective of Queensland Health, Australia using a decision model with evidence derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resources were valued using 2014 prices and the time horizon of the analysis was one year. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate net monetary benefits (NB) and to calculate VOI measures.

RESULTS

Compared with standard hospital diet, nutritional support was cost saving at AU$425 per patient, and more effective with an average 0.005 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. At a willingness-to-pay of AU$50,000 per QALY, the incremental NB was AU$675 per patient, with a probability of 87 % that nutritional support is cost-effective. The expected value of perfect information was AU$5 million and the expected value of perfect parameter information was highest for the relative risk of developing a pressure ulcer at AU$2.5 million. For a future trial investigating the relative effectiveness of the interventions, the expected net benefit of research would be maximised at AU$100,000 with 1,200 patients in each arm if nutritional support was perfectly implemented. The opportunity cost of withholding the decision to implement the intervention until the results of the future study are available would be AU$14 million.

CONCLUSIONS

Nutritional support is cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers in high-risk hospitalised patients compared with standard diet. Future research to reduce decision uncertainty is worthwhile; however, given the opportunity losses associated with delaying the implementation, "implement and research" is the approach recommended for this intervention.