Setting priorities for research: A practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information

Health Economics

Volumn 16, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 1345-1357

  Fleurence, Rachael L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Payback; Priority setting; Research; Value of information

Indexed keywords

CALCIUM; VITAMIN D;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FINANCIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; OSTEOPOROSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN ULCER; UNITED KINGDOM;

AGED; CALCIUM, DIETARY; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HIP FRACTURES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; OSTEOPOROSIS; PRESSURE ULCER; QUALITY OF LIFE; VITAMIN D;

EID: 38049031855     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1225     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. 2004. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Medical Decision Making 24(2): 207-227.
2. Bloor K, Freemantle N, Khadjesari Z, Maynard A. 2003. Impact of NICE guidance on laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernias: analysis of interrupted time series. British Medical Journal 326(7389): 578.
3. Bradley M, Cullum N, Nelson EA, Petticrew M, Sheldon T, Torgerson D. 1999a. Systematic reviews of wound care management: (2). Dressings and topical agents used in the healing of chronic wounds. Health Technology Assessment 3(17 Pt 2): 1-35.
4. Bradley M, Cullum N, Sheldon T. 1999b. The debridement of chronic wounds: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 3(17 Pt 1): iii-78.
5. Briggs AH. 2000. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 17(5): 479-500.
6. Buxton M, Hanney S. 1996. How can payback from health services research be assessed? Journal of Health Services Research 1(1): 35-43.
7. Buxton M, Hanney S. 1997. Assessing Payback from Department of Health Research and Development: Second Report. Brunel University: Uxbridge, 24.
8. Claxton K. 1999. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. Journal of Health Economics 18(3): 341-364.
9. Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Philips Z, Palmer S. 2004. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technology Assessment 8(31): 1-103, iii.
10. Claxton K, Posnett J. 1996. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Economies 5(6): 513-524.
11. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. 2002. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet 360(9334): 711-715.
12. Cullum N, Nelson EA, Flemming K, Sheldon T. 2001. Systematic reviews of wound care management: (5) beds; (6) compression; (7) laser therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, electrotherapy and electromagnetic therapy. Health Technology Assessment 5(9): 1-221.
13. Davies L, Drummond MF, Papanikolaou P. 2000. Prioritizing investments in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16(1): 73-91.
14. Deber RB. 1992. Translating technology assessment into policy. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 8(1): 131-137.
15. Department of Health. 2000. Research and Development for a First Class Service. Department of Health, London.
16. Department of Health. 2003. Hospital Episode Statistics England Financial Year 2002-2003.
17. Detsky AS. 1989. Are clinical trials a cost-effective investment? The Journal of the American Medical Association 262: 1795-1800.
18. Donaldson MS, Sox HC. 1992. Setting Priorities for Health Technology Assessment: A Model Process. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
19. Drummond MF, Davies LM, Ferris FL. 1992. Assessing the costs and benefits of medical research: the diabetic retinopathy study. Social Science and Medicine 34(9): 973-981.
20. Eddy DM. 1989. Selecting technologies for assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 5: 485-501.
21. Felli JC, Hazen GB. 1998. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Medical Decision Making 18: 95-109.
22. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. 2001. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Economics 10(8): 779-787.
23. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. 2005. The Value of Implementation and the Value of Information: Combined and Uneven Development. Centre for Health Economics, York, CHE Research Paper 5. Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/pdf/rp5.pdf, accessed 27 October 2006.
24. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Briggs A. 2000. Improving the Efficiency and Relevance of Health Technology Assessment: The Role of Iterative Decision Analytic Modelling. Centre for Health Economics: York, 179.
25. Fleurence R. 2004. The cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention treatments in the elderly. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 20(2): 184-191.
26. Fleurence R. 2005. The cost-effectiveness of pressure relieving devices for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 21(3): 334-341.
27. Fleurence R, Iglesias CP, Torgerson D. 2003. Cost-effectiveness of nutritional supplements for the treatment of osteoporosis. In Nutritional Aspects of Bone Health, Bonjour JP, New S (eds). Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, UK, 693-708.
28. Fleurence R, Iglesias CP, Torgerson D. 2005a. Economic aspects of osteoporosis treatment. In The Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis in the High-Risk Patient, Cooper C, Lindsay R (eds). Martin Dunitz: London, UK, 81-102.
29. Fleurence R, Iglesias CP, Torgerson D. 2005b. Economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis: a structured review of the literature. Osteoporosis International 17(1): 29-40.
30. Fleurence R, Torgerson D. 2004. Setting priorities for research. Health Policy 69(1): 1-10.
31. Hampton JR. 1997. Evidence-based medicine, practice variations and clinical freedom. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 3(2): 123-131.
32. Hanney S, Davies A, Buxton M. 1999. Assessing benefits from health research projects: can we use questionnaires instead of case studies? Research Evaluation 8(3): 189-199.
33. Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. 1997. Priority setting for health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 13(2): 144-185.
34. Larson EB. 1997. How can clinicians incorporate research advances into practice? Journal of General Internal Medicine 12(Suppl.): S20-S24.
35. Lomas J. 1991. Words without action? The production, dissemination, and impact of consensus recommendations. Annual Review of Public Health 12: 41-65.
36. McInnes E. 2004. The use of pressure-relieving devices (beds, mattresses and overlays) for the prevention of pressure ulcers in primary and secondary care. Journal of Tissue Viability 14(1): 4-6, 8, 10.
37. Meltzer D. 2001. Addressing uncertainty in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: implications of expected utility maximization for methods to perform sensitivity analysis and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis to set priorities for medical research. Journal of Health Economics 20: 109-129.
38. Michaud CM, Murray CJ, Bloom BR. 2001. Burden of disease - implications for future research. The Journal of the American Medical Association 285(5): 535-539.
39. National Collaborating Centre for Nursing & Supportive Care. 2003. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pressure-Relieving Devices. National Institute for Clinical Excellence, London.
40. National Statistics. 2003. Census 2001. www.statistics.gov.uk/ census2001. 5-10-2003.
41. O'Meara S, Cullum N, Majid M, Sheldon T. 2000. Systematic reviews of wound care management: (3) antimicrobial agents for chronic wounds; (4) diabetic foot ulceration. Health Technology Assessment 4(21): 1-237.
42. Parsonnet J, Harris RA, Hack HM, Owens DK. 1996. Modelling cost-effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori screening to prevent gastric cancer: a mandate for clinical trials. Lancet 348: 150-154.
43. Phelps CE, Mooney C. 1992. Correction and update on 'priority setting in medical technology assessment. Medical Care 30(8): 744-751.
44. Phelps CE, Parente ST. 1990. Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Medical Care 28(8): 703-723.
45. Raftery J. 2001. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. British Medical Journal 323(7324): 1300-1303.
46. Salomon JA, Weinstein MC, Goldie SJ. 2004. Taking account of future technology in cost effectiveness analysis. British Medical Journal 329(7468): 733-736.
47. Stinnett A, Mullahy J. 1998. A new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Medical Decision Making 18(Suppl.): S68-S80.
48. Torgerson DJ, Donaldson C, Reid D. 1996. Using economics to prioritize research: a case study of randomized trials for the prevention of hip fractures due to osteoporosis. Journal of Health Services Research 1(3): 141-146.
49. Townsend J, Buxton M. 1997. Cost-effectiveness scenario analysis for a proposed trial of hormone replacement therapy. Health Policy 39: 181-194.
50. Townsend J, Buxton M, Harper G. 2003. Prioritisation of health technology assessment. The PATHS model: methods and case studies. Health Technology Assessment 7(20): iii, 1-iii, 82.
51. Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FFH. 1994. Costs, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Economics 3:309-319.
52. Weinstein MC. 1983. Are clinical trials cost-effective? Science 12: 17-23.