IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i1p33-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Research Priorities: The Value of Information Associated with Repeat Screening for Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Bojke

    (Centre for Health Economics, kpc1@york.ac.uk, University of York, York, United Kingdom)

  • Karl Claxton

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom, Department of Economics)

  • Mark J. Sculpher

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom)

  • Stephen Palmer

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom)

Abstract

The authors report an analysis that was developed as part of a pilot study examining the use of decision analysis and value-of-information methods to inform research prioritization decisions for the UK health care system. This analysis was conducted to inform decision makers whether additional research on screening for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) would be worthwhile and to demonstrate the benefits and feasibility of using such analytic methods to inform policy decision within the time-lines demanded by existing procedures. A probabilistic decision model was developed to establish the cost-effectiveness of a policy of repeat screening for AMD using the Amsler grid followed by treatment with photodynamic therapy (PDT) compared with 2 alternatives: PDT without screening (self-referral) and no screening or treatment. Screening for AMD appears to be cost-effective on the basis of existing evidence; however, the decision to implement a policy of screening is somewhat uncertain, with a probability that screening is cost-effective of 0.87 and 0.72 for the 20/40 and 20/80 models, respectively, at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) associated with this decision is substantial (£6.9 million for the 20/40 model and £14.5 million for the 20/80 model), with a sizeable EVPI associated with the effect of PDT on quality of life. The analysis demonstrates that EVPI analysis can be implemented in a timely fashion to inform the type of research prioritization decisions faced by any health care system. This case study also illustrates the need to account for any structural uncertainties appropriately.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Bojke & Karl Claxton & Mark J. Sculpher & Stephen Palmer, 2008. "Identifying Research Priorities: The Value of Information Associated with Repeat Screening for Age-Related Macular Degeneration," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 33-43, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:33-43
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07309638
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07309638
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07309638?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claxton, Karl, 1999. "The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 341-364, June.
    2. Ben A. Van Hout & Maiwenn J. Al & Gilad S. Gordon & Frans F. H. Rutten, 1994. "Costs, effects and C/E‐ratios alongside a clinical trial," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(5), pages 309-319, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kurinchi Gurusamy & Edward Wilson & Andrew Burroughs & Brian Davidson, 2012. "Intra-operative vs pre-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 15-29, January.
    2. Laura McCullagh & Cathal Walsh & Michael Barry, 2012. "Value-of-Information Analysis to Reduce Decision Uncertainty Associated with the Choice of Thromboprophylaxis after Total Hip Replacement in the Irish Healthcare Setting," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(10), pages 941-959, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    2. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Pedram Sendi, 2021. "Dealing with Bad Risk in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: The Cost-Effectiveness Risk-Aversion Curve," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 161-169, February.
    4. Barbara Barrett & Waquas Waheed & Simone Farrelly & Max Birchwood & Graham Dunn & Clare Flach & Claire Henderson & Morven Leese & Helen Lester & Max Marshall & Diana Rose & Kim Sutherby & George Szmuk, 2013. "Randomised Controlled Trial of Joint Crisis Plans to Reduce Compulsory Treatment for People with Psychosis: Economic Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-11, November.
    5. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2017. "Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 301-324, April.
    6. Eldon Spackman & Stewart Richmond & Mark Sculpher & Martin Bland & Stephen Brealey & Rhian Gabe & Ann Hopton & Ada Keding & Harriet Lansdown & Sara Perren & David Torgerson & Ian Watt & Hugh MacPherso, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Acupuncture, Counselling and Usual Care in Treating Patients with Depression: The Results of the ACUDep Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-12, November.
    7. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    8. Thomas Reinhold & Claudia Witt & Susanne Jena & Benno Brinkhaus & Stefan Willich, 2008. "Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment in patients with osteoarthritis pain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 209-219, August.
    9. Monica Merito & Patrizio Pezzotti, 2006. "Comparing costs and effectiveness of different starting points for highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-positive patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(1), pages 30-36, March.
    10. Pedram Sendi & Huldrych F Günthard & Mathew Simcock & Bruno Ledergerber & Jörg Schüpbach & Manuel Battegay & for the Swiss HIV Cohort Study, 2007. "Cost-Effectiveness of Genotypic Antiretroviral Resistance Testing in HIV-Infected Patients with Treatment Failure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(1), pages 1-8, January.
    11. Isaac Corro Ramos & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken & Maiwenn J. Al, 2013. "The Role of Value-of-Information Analysis in a Health Care Research Priority Setting," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 472-489, May.
    12. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Maiwenn Al, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves Revisited," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 93-100, February.
    14. Frank G. Sandmann & Julie V. Robotham & Sarah R. Deeny & W. John Edmunds & Mark Jit, 2018. "Estimating the opportunity costs of bed‐days," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 592-605, March.
    15. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    16. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    17. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost‐effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740, December.
    18. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Reasonable patient care under uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1397-1421, October.
    19. McKenna, Claire & Chalabi, Zaid & Epstein, David & Claxton, Karl, 2010. "Budgetary policies and available actions: A generalisation of decision rules for allocation and research decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 170-181, January.
    20. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:33-43. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.