Using value of information analysis to inform publicly funded research priorities

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 37-46

  Ginnelly, Laura ^a   Claxton, Karl ^a   Sculpher, Mark J ^a   Golder, Sue ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT;

ANTIMICROBIAL THERAPY; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; LONG TERM CARE; LOW DRUG DOSE; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROBABILITY; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RECURRENT INFECTION; SEX DIFFERENCE; SIMULATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED KINGDOM; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; VESICOURETERAL REFLUX; CASE REPORT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECONOMICS; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; INFANT; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PRESCHOOL CHILD;

ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFANT; MALE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; STATE MEDICINE; VESICO-URETERAL REFLUX;

EID: 25144470079     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00148365-200504010-00006     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Department of Health. R&D annual reports 2005: guidance for annual reports on the performance management and future planning of R&D activity within NHS organisations [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/ PolicyAndGuidance/ResearchAndDevelopment/fs/en. [Accessed 2005 Jun 1]
2. National Institutes of Health. The NIH almanac: appropriations [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nih.gov/about/almanac/appropriations/index.htm [Accessed 2005 Jun 1]
3. Sullivan SD, Lyles A, Luce B, et al. AMCP guidance for submission of clinical and economic evaluation data to support formulary listing in US health plans and pharmacy benefits management organisations. J Manag Care Pharm 2001; 7: 272-82
4. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (reference N0515) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=201974 [Accessed 2005 Jun 1]
5. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 341-64
6. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, et al. Improving the efficiency and relevance of health technology assessment: the role of decision analytic modelling. Centre for Health Economics discussion paper no. 179. 2000. York: University of York, 2000
7. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 2002; 360: 711-5
8. Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. 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 (31): 1-103
9. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmaco economics 2000; 17 (5): 479-500
10. Hunink MGM, Glasziou PP, Siegel JE, et al. Decision making in health and medicine: integrating evidence and values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001
11. Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2: 26-30
12. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of costeffectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001; 10: 779-89
13. Williams GJ, Lee A, Craig JC. Long-term antibiotics for preventing recurrent urinary tract infection in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; (4): CD001534
14. Winberg J, Bergstrom T, Jacobsson B. Morbidity, age and sex distribution, recurrences and renal scarring in symptomatic urinary tract infection in childhood. Kidney Int Suppl 1975; 4: S101-6
15. Briggs AH, Sculpher MJ. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (4): 397-409
16. Downs S. Technical report: urinary tract infections in febrile infants and young children. Paediatrics 1999; 103 (4): e54
17. Savage DCL, Howie G, Adler K, et al. Controlled trial of therapy in covert bacteriuria of childhood. Lancet 1975; I: 58-61
18. Stansfeld JM. Duration of treatment for urinary tract infections in children. BMJ 1975; 3: 65-6
19. Smellie JM, Katz G, Gruneberg RN. Controlled trial of prophylactic treatment in childhood urinary tract infection. Lancet 1978; II: 175-8
20. Brendstrup L, Hjelt K, Petersen KE, et al. Nitrofurantoin versus trimethoprim prophylaxis in recurrent urinary tract infection in children: a randomized, double-blind study. Acta Paediatr Scand 1990; 79: 1225-34
21. Jodal U. The natural history of bacteriuria in childhood. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1987; 1: 713-29
22. Alexander SR, Arbus GS, Butt KM, et al. The 1989 Report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study. Pediatr Nephrol 1990; 4: 542-53
23. Arant Jr BS. Vesicoureteric reflux and renal injury. Am J Kidney Dis 1991; 17 (5): 491-511
24. Jacobson SH, Hansson S, Jakobsson B. Vesico-ureteric reflux: occurrence and long-term risks. Acta Paediatr 1999; 88 Suppl. 431: 22-30
25. Roberts SD, Gross TL, Maxwell DR. Examining alternative end-stage renal disease (ESRD) therapies through simulation. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Symposium on Simulation; 1979; Tampa (FL). Piscataway (NJ): IEEE Press, 1979: 71-90
26. Churchill DN, Torrance GW, Taylor DW, et al. Measurement of quality of life in end-stage renal disease: the time trade-off approach. Clin Invest Med 1987; 10 (1): 14-20
27. Wahn F, Daniel V, Kronenberg F, et al. Impact of apolipoprotein (a) phenotypes on long- term renal transplant survival. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12: 1052-8
28. Mowatt G, Vale L, Perez J, et al. Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of home versus hospital or satellite unit haemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failure. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7 (2): 1-174
29. Barry HC, Ebell MH, Hickner J. Evaluation of suspected urinary tract infection in ambulatory women. J Fam Pract 1997; 44 (1): 49-60
30. Institute of Public Finance. The health service financial database and comparative tool 2001. Croydon: CIPFA Chartered Institute of Public Finance, 2001
31. Department of Health. Department of Health: policy appraisal and health. London: Department of Health, 1995
32. Ades AE. Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation of a multi-parameter decision model: consistency of evidence, and the accurate assessment of uncertainty. Med Decis Making 2002; 22 (4): 359-71
33. Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information in medical decision modelling. Med Decis Making 2004; 24 (2): 207-27
34. Gross CP, Anderson GF, Powe NR. The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1881-7
35. Michaud CM, Murray CJ, Bloom BR. Burden of disease: implications for future research. JAMA 2001; 285: 535-9
36. Buxton M, Hanney S. Assessing payback from Department of Health Research and Development: second report. HERG research report 24. Uxbridge: Brunel University, 1997
37. Thompson KM, Evans JS. The value of improved national exposure information for perchloroethylene (perc): a case study for dry cleaners. Risk Anal 1007; 17: 253-71
38. Davies L, Drummond M, Papanikolaou P, et al. Prioritizing investments in health technology assessment: can we assess potential value for money? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 73-91
39. Phelps CE, Parente ST. Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care 1990; 28: 703-23
40. Schlaiffer R. Probability and statistics for business decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958
41. McCabe C, Dixon S. Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models. Pharmaco economics 2000; 17 (5): 501-13