Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Appropriate Elicitation of Expert Opinion in Economic Models

Making Expert Data Fit for Purpose

  • Commentary
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Akehurst RL. Making decisions on technology availability in the British National Health Service: why we need reliable models. Value Health 2003 Jan–Feb; 6 (1): 3–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chilcott J, Brennan A, Booth A, et al. The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7 (23): iii, 1–125

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (4): 355–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices — Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003 Jan–Feb; 6(1): 9–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  6. Karnon J, Brennan A, Akehurst R. A critique and impact analysis of decision modeling assumptions. Med Decis Making 2007 Jul–Aug; 27 (4): 491–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Evans C, Crawford B. Expert judgement in pharmacoeconomic studies: guidance and future use. Pharmacoeconomics 2000 Jun; 17 (6): 545–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 Jan; 2 (1): 26–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Vallejo-Torres L, Steuten LM, Buxton MJ, et al. Integrating health economics modeling in the product development cycle of medical devices: a Bayesian approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008 Fall; 24 (4): 459–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Claxton K, Briggs A, Buxton MJ, et al. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? BMJ 2008 Feb 2; 336 (7638): 251–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med Decis Making 2008 Jan–Feb; 28 (1): 21–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Payne K. Fish and chips all round? Regulation of DNA-based genetic diagnostics. Health Econ 2009 Nov; 18 (11): 1233–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Diagnostics assessment programme: interim methods statement. London: NICE, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whatwedo/aboutdiagnosticsassessment/?domedia=1&mid=09ECD2A3-19B9-E0B5-D480B5D3F5A9CD76 [Accessed 2010 Sep 9]

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lindqvist P, Nordanger UK. (Mis-?) using the E-Delphi method: an attempt to articulate the practical knowledge of teaching. J Res Methods Methodological Issues 2007; 1 (1) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2007/articles/1222.pdf [Accessed 2011 Mar 14]

  15. Goodman CM. The Delphi technique: a critique. J Adv Nurs 1987 Nov; 12 (6): 729–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rauch W. The decision Delphi. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1979; 15: 159–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Franklin KK, Hart JK. Idea generation and exploration: benefits and limitations of the policy Delphi research method. Innov High Educ 2007; 31: 237–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shabaruddin FH, Elliott RA, Valle JW, et al. Understanding chemotherapy treatment pathways of advanced colorectal cancer patients to inform an economic evaluation in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer 2010 Jul 27; 103 (3): 315–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher M, et al. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: a review and application of methods. Value Health. Epub 2009 Jan 9

  20. Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005 Apr; 14 (4): 339–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. O’Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, et al. Uncertain judgements: eliciting experts’ probabilities. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, 2006

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Leal J, Wordsworth S, Legood R, et al. Eliciting expert opinion for economic models: an applied example. Value Health 2007 May–Jun; 10 (3): 195–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 799–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK

    William Sullivan

  2. The University of Manchester, Health Sciences — Economics, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, Greater Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Katherine Payne (Professor of Health Economics)

Authors
  1. William Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine Payne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine Payne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sullivan, W., Payne, K. The Appropriate Elicitation of Expert Opinion in Economic Models. Pharmacoeconomics 29, 455–459 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11589220-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11589220-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation