1
|
Hrzic R, Cade MV, Wong BLH, McCreesh N, Simon J, Czabanowska K. A competency framework on simulation modelling-supported decision-making for Master of Public Health graduates. J Public Health (Oxf) 2024; 46:127-135. [PMID: 38061776 PMCID: PMC10901273 DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdad248] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2023] [Revised: 10/04/2023] [Accepted: 11/09/2023] [Indexed: 02/29/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Simulation models are increasingly important for supporting decision-making in public health. However, due to lack of training, many public health professionals remain unfamiliar with constructing simulation models and using their outputs for decision-making. This study contributes to filling this gap by developing a competency framework on simulation model-supported decision-making targeting Master of Public Health education. METHODS The study combined a literature review, a two-stage online Delphi survey and an online consensus workshop. A draft competency framework was developed based on 28 peer-reviewed publications. A two-stage online Delphi survey involving 15 experts was conducted to refine the framework. Finally, an online consensus workshop, including six experts, evaluated the competency framework and discussed its implementation. RESULTS The competency framework identified 20 competencies related to stakeholder engagement, problem definition, evidence identification, participatory system mapping, model creation and calibration and the interpretation and dissemination of model results. The expert evaluation recommended differentiating professional profiles and levels of expertise and synergizing with existing course contents to support its implementation. CONCLUSIONS The competency framework developed in this study is instrumental to including simulation model-supported decision-making in public health training. Future research is required to differentiate expertise levels and develop implementation strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rok Hrzic
- Department of International Health, Care and Public Health Research Institute - CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, 6200 MD, Netherlands
| | - Maria Vitoria Cade
- Department of International Health, Care and Public Health Research Institute - CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, 6200 MD, Netherlands
| | - Brian Li Han Wong
- Department of International Health, Care and Public Health Research Institute - CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, 6200 MD, Netherlands
| | - Nicky McCreesh
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Dynamics, Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
| | - Judit Simon
- Department of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria
| | - Katarzyna Czabanowska
- Department of International Health, Care and Public Health Research Institute - CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, 6200 MD, Netherlands
- Department of Health Policy Management, Institute of Public Health, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, 31-066, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
O'Leary MC, Hassmiller Lich K, Mayorga ME, Hicklin K, Davis MM, Brenner AT, Reuland DS, Birken SA, Wheeler SB. Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions. Cancer Causes Control 2023; 34:135-148. [PMID: 37147411 PMCID: PMC10689514 DOI: 10.1007/s10552-023-01692-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2022] [Accepted: 03/29/2023] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE We aimed to understand how an interactive, web-based simulation tool can be optimized to support decision-making about the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS Interviews were conducted with decision-makers, including health administrators, advocates, and researchers, with a strong foundation in CRC prevention. Following a demonstration of the microsimulation modeling tool, participants reflected on the tool's potential impact for informing the selection and implementation of strategies for improving CRC screening and outcomes. The interviews assessed participants' preferences regarding the tool's design and content, comprehension of the model results, and recommendations for improving the tool. RESULTS Seventeen decision-makers completed interviews. Themes regarding the tool's utility included building a case for EBI implementation, selecting EBIs to adopt, setting implementation goals, and understanding the evidence base. Reported barriers to guiding EBI implementation included the tool being too research-focused, contextual differences between the simulated and local contexts, and lack of specificity regarding the design of simulated EBIs. Recommendations to address these challenges included making the data more actionable, allowing users to enter their own model inputs, and providing a how-to guide for implementing the simulated EBIs. CONCLUSION Diverse decision-makers found the simulation tool to be most useful for supporting early implementation phases, especially deciding which EBI(s) to implement. To increase the tool's utility, providing detailed guidance on how to implement the selected EBIs, and the extent to which users can expect similar CRC screening gains in their contexts, should be prioritized.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meghan C O'Leary
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
| | - Kristen Hassmiller Lich
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Maria E Mayorga
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
| | - Karen Hicklin
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Melinda M Davis
- Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
- Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
- School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Alison T Brenner
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Daniel S Reuland
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Sarah A Birken
- Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Stephanie B Wheeler
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Khalili F, Najafi B, Mansour-Ghanaei F, Yousefi M, Abdollahzad H, Motlagh A. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2020; 13:1499-1512. [PMID: 32982508 PMCID: PMC7490076 DOI: 10.2147/rmhp.s262171] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2020] [Accepted: 07/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant health problem with an increasing incidence worldwide. Screening is one of the ways, in which cases and deaths of CRC can be prevented. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the different CRC screening techniques and to specify the efficient technique from a cost-effectiveness perspective. METHODS The economic studies of CRC screening in general populations (average risk), aged 50 years and above were reviewed. Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles, abstracts, and full-texts of the studies in five databases: Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. The disagreements between reviewers were resolved through the authors' consensus. The main outcome measures in this systematic review were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening versus no-screening and then in comparison with other screening techniques. The ICER is defined by the difference in cost between two possible interventions, divided by the difference in their effect. RESULTS Eight studies were identified and retained for the final analysis. In this study, when screening techniques were compared to no-screening, all CRC screening techniques showed to be cost-effective. The lowest ICER calculated was $PPP -16265/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (the negative ICERs were between purchasing power parity in US dollar ($PPP) -16265/QALY to $PPP -1988/QALY, whereas the positive ICERs were between $PPP 1257/QALY to $PPP 55987/QALY). For studies comparing various screening techniques, there was great heterogeneity in terms of the structures of the analyses, leading to diverse conclusions about their incremental cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION All CRC screening techniques were cost-effective, compared with the no-screening methods. The cost-effectiveness of the various screening techniques mainly was dependent on the context-specific parameters and highly affected by the framework of the cost-effectiveness analysis. In order to make the studies comparable, it is important to adopt a reference-based methodology for economic evaluation studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Farhad Khalili
- Department of Health Economics, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
| | - Behzad Najafi
- Iranian Center of Excellence in Health Management, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
| | - Fariborz Mansour-Ghanaei
- Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases Research Center, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
| | - Mahmood Yousefi
- Department of Health Economics, Iranian Center of Excellence in Health Management, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
| | - Hadi Abdollahzad
- Research Center for Environmental Determinants of Health, Health Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
| | - Ali Motlagh
- National Cancer Control Secretariat, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran
| |
Collapse
|