Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: Qualitative study and methodological review

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 14, Issue 25, 2010, Pages

  Chilcott, J ^a   Tappenden, P ^a   Rawdin, A ^a   Johnson, M ^a   Kaltenthaler, E ^a   Paisley, S ^a   Papaioannou, D ^a   Shippam, A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MANAGEMENT; METHODOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; POLICY MAKING; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 77953435900     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta14250     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Buxton M, Drummond M, Van Hout B, Prince R, Sheldon T, Szucs T, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997;6:217-27.
2. Cragg PB, King M. Spreadsheet modeling abuse: An opportunity for OR. J Op Res Soc 1993;44:743-52.
3. Panko RR. What we know about spreadsheet errors. J End User Comp Special issue on Scaling Up End User Development 2008;10:15-21.
4. Neuhauser D, Lewicki A. What do we gain from the sixth stool guaiac? N Engl J Med 1975;293:226-8.
5. Brown K, Burrows C. The sixth stool guaiac test. J Health Econ 1990;9:429-55.
6. Culyer A. Economics. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1985.
7. Drummond M, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
8. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O'Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
9. Hill S, Mitchell A, Henry D. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceuticals Benefit Scheme. J Am Med Assoc 2000;283:2116-21.
10. Li J, Harris A, Chin G. Assessing the quality of evidence for decision-making (QED): a new instrument. Abstract 104. 2008. Health Priorities 2008. Conference of the International Society for Priorities in Health Care, Gateshead, UK 28-31 October 2008.
11. Holcombe M, Ipate F. Correct Systems - Building a Business Process Solution. Applied Computing Series. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1998.
12. Cooper N, Coyle D, Abrams K, Mugford M, Sutton A. Use of evidence in decision models: an appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. J Health Service Res Policy 2005;10:245-50.
13. Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M, editors. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
14. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. 2nd edn. Ottowa, Canada: CCOHTA; 1997.
15. Garrison LJ. The ISPOR Good Practice Modeling Principles - a sensible approach: be transparent, be reasonable. Value in Health 2003;6(1):6-8.
16. McCabe C, Dixon S. Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;5:501-13.
17. Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton C. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:461-77.
18. Panko RR. A rant on the lousy use of science in best practice recommendations for spreadsheet development, testing and inspection. 2007. URL: http://panko.cba.hawaii.edu
19. Britten N. Qualitative interviews. In Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative Research in Health Care. 3rd edn. Oxford: BMJ Blackwell Publishing; 2006. pp. 12-20.
20. Mason J. Qualitative Researching. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd; 1998.
21. Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative Research Practice. A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd; 2003.
22. Black N, Brazier J, Fitzpatrick R, Reeves B. Health services research methods: a guide to best practices. London, UK: BMJ Books; 1998. pp. 187-98.
23. Fisher K, Erdelez S, McKechnie L. Theories of information behaviour. ASIST monograph series 2006. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology; 2006.
24. Mays N, Pope C. Quality in qualitative health research. In Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative Research in Health Care. 3rd edn. Oxford: BMJ Blackwell Publishing; 2006. pp. 82-101.
25. Rosenhead J, Mingers J. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. 2nd edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2001.
26. Pidd M. Computer Simulation in Management Science. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2004.
27. Schlesinger S, Crosbie RE, Gagne RE, Innis GS, Lalwani CS, Loch J, et al. Terminology for model credibility. Simulation 1979;32:103-4.
28. Naylor TH, Finger JM, McKenney JL, Schrank WE, Holt CC. Verification of computer simulation models. Management Sci 1967;14:B92-B106.
29. Luis SJ, McLaughlin D. A stochastic approach to model validation. Adv Water Resour 1992;15:15-32.
30. Kleijnen J. Verification and validation of simulation models. Eur J Op Res 1995;82:145-62.
31. Special issue on model validation. Eur J Op Res 2009;66(2).
32. Dery R, Landry M, Banville C. Revisiting the issue of model validation in OR: an epistemological view. Eur J Op Res 1993;66:168-83.
33. Raitt R. OR and science. J Op Res Soc 1974;20:835-6.
34. Rorty R. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1979.
35. Kleindorfer GB, O'Neill L, Ganesahn R. Validation in simulation, various position in the philosophy of science. Management Sci 1998;44:1087-99.
36. Gadamer H. Truth and Method. 4th edn. New York, NY: Seabury Press; 1975.
37. Bernstein R. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics and Praxis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1983.
38. Howson C, Urbach P. Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing Company; 1996.
39. Sargent RG. An exposition on verification and validation of simulation models. In Gantz DT, Blais GC, Solomon SL, editors. Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Winter Simulation. New Jersey, NJ: IEEE Press; 1985; pp. 15-22.
40. Sargent RG. Validation and verification of simulation models. In Farrington PA, Nembhard HB, Sturrock DT, Evans GW, editors. Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Winter Simulation: Simulation - a bridge to the future, vol. 1, New Jersey, NJ: IEEE Press; 1999. pp. 39-48.
41. th Conference on Winter Simulation. New Jersey, NJ: J Wiley & Sons, IEEE Press 2004; pp. 17-28.
42. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K. Verification, validation and confirmation of numerical models in earth sciences. Science 1994;263(5147):641-6.
43. Kleijnen J. Verification and validation of simulation models. Eur J Op Res 1995;82:145-62.
44. Chwif L, Shimada LM. A prescriptive technique for V&V of simulation models when no real-life data are available. In Perrone LF, Lawson BG, Liu J, Wieland FP, editors. Proceedings of the 38th Winter Simulation Conference. New Jersey, NJ: J Wiley & Sons, IEEE Press; 2006; pp. 911-18.
45. Panko RR, Halverson Jr. RP. Spreadsheets on trial: a survey of research on spreadsheet risks. In Proceedings of the 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. New Jersey, NJ: IEEE Press; 1996;2:326.
46. Teo TSH, Tan M. Quantitative and qualitative errors in spreadsheet development. Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. New Jersey, NJ: IEEE Press; 1997;3:149.
47. Rajalingham K, Chadwick DR, Knight B. Classification of spreadsheet errors. Conference of the European Spreadsheet Risks Interest Group (EuSpRIG) 2000.
48. Ko AJ, Myers BA. Development and evaluation of a model of programming errors. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Human-Centric Computing Languages and Environments, Auckland, New Zealand, 28-31 October 2003. pp. 7-14.
49. Rajalingham K. A revised classification of spreadsheet errors. Conference of the European Spreadsheet Risks Interest Group (EuSpRIG) 2005.
50. Walia GS, Carver J, Philip T. Requirement error abstraction and classification:an empirical study. Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering; 21-22 September 2006.
51. Purser M, Chadwick D. Does an awareness of differing types of spreadsheet errors aid end-users in identifying spreadsheets errors? Conference of the European Spreadsheet Risks Interest Group (EuSpRIG) 2006; pp. 185-204.
52. Panko RR. Revising the Panko-Halverson taxonomy of spreadsheet risks. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2009.
53. Powell SG, Baker KR, Lawson B. A critical review of the literature on spreadsheet errors. Decision Support Systems 2008;46:128-38.
54. Panko RR. End User Computing: Management, Applications and Technology. New York, NY: John Wiley; 1988.
55. Allwood C. Error detection processes in statistical problem solving. Cogn Sci 1984;8:413-37.
56. Flower L, Hayes J. The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints. In Greg LW, Steinberg ER. editors. Cognitive Processes in Writing. Hillsdalle, NJ: Erlbaum; 1980. pp. 31-50.
57. Ko A, Myers B. A framework and methodology for studying the causes of errors in programming systems. J Visual Lang Comp 2005;16:41-84.
58. Reason J. Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
59. Eddy D. Technology assessment: the role of mathematical modeling. In Assessing Medical Technologies. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press; 1985. pp. 144-75.