LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Book
Subjects:
Introduction: \ud The role of models in supporting health policy decisions is reliant on model credibility. Credibility is fundamentally determined by the choices and judgements that people make in the process of developing a model. However, the method of uncovering choices and making judgements in model development is largely unreported and is not addressed by modelling methods guidance.\ud \ud Methods: \ud This qualitative study was part of a project examining errors in health technology assessment models. In-depth interviews with academic and commercial modellers were used to obtain descriptions of the model development process. Data were analysed using framework analysis and interpreted in the context of the methodological literature.\ud \ud Results: \ud The activities involved in developing models were characterised according to the themes; understanding the decision problem, conceptual modelling, model implementation, model checking, and engaging with the decision maker. Finding and using evidence was frequently mentioned across these themes. There was marked variation between practitioners in the extent to which conceptual modelling was recognised as an activity distinct from model implementation.\ud \ud Discussion: \ud Methodological approaches to addressing model credibility described in the wider modelling literature highlight the necessity to disentangle the conceptual modelling and implementation activities. Whilst interviewees talked of judgements and choice making throughout model development, discussion indicated that these were based upon skills and experience with no discussion of formal approaches. Methods are required that provide for a systematic approach to uncovering choices, to generating a shared view of consensus and divergence, and for making judgements and choices in model development.\ud
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 4 Cooper N, Coyle D, Abrams K, et al. Use of evidence in decision models: an appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. Journal of Health Service Research and Policy 2005;10(4):245-50.
    • 5 Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Rawdin A, et al. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review. Health Technology Assessment 2010;14(25).
    • 6 Britten N. Qualitative interviews. In: Pope C, Mays N, eds., Qualitative Research in Health Care (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: BMJ Blackwell Publishing., 2006.
    • 15 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. Ottowa, Canada: CADTH, 2010.
    • 16 NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2004.
    • 17 NICE. Methods for development of NICE public health guidance. (2nd ed.). London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009.
    • 18 Consensus conference on economic modelling. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17(5):443-513.
    • 19 Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technology Assessment 2004;8(36).
    • 20 Schlesinger S, Crosbie RE, Gagne RE, et al. Terminology for model credibility. Simulation 1979;32(3):103-4.
    • 21 Sargent RG. Validation and verification of simulation models. In: Ingall RG, Rossetti MD, Smith TS, Peters BA, eds., Proceedings of the 36th Winter Simulation Conference. New Jersey: J Wiley & Sons, IEEE Press, 2004. p. 17-28.
    • 22 Checkland PB, Scholes J. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J, eds., Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
    • 23 Eden C. Cognitive Mapping: a review. European Journal of Operational Research 1988;36:1-13.
    • 24 Eden C, Ackermann F. Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. European Journal of Operational Research 2004;152:615- 30.
    • 25 Vandenbroeck P, Goossens J, Clemens M. Foresight, Tackling Obesities: Future Choices - Building the Obesity System Map. London: Government Office for Science, 2007.
    • 26 Rosenhead J, Mingers J. Rational analysis for a problematic world revisted. Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict (Second ed.) John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2009.
    • 27 Ara R, Tumur I, Pandor A, et al. Ezetimibe for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment 2008;12(21).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article