IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i6p805-815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Modeling of Disagreements

Author

Listed:
  • Harold P. Lehmann
  • Nkossi Dambita
  • George R. Buchanan
  • James F. Casella

Abstract

Purpose. To identify core disagreements between pediatric hematologists who would treat children with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) on initial presentation (“Treaters†) and those who would treat by observation (“Observers†), to determine whether each group’s preferred stance was consistent with each individual’s detailed perceptions, and to identify key variables in each stance. Methods. A decision model was constructed in collaboration with experts, and a detailed questionnaire was presented to a nationally representative committee of 25 pediatric hematologists. A full decision tree was specified for each respondent. Results. Nineteen (76%) experts responded; based on preference for initial treatment, 9 were Treaters and 10 Observers. Of the 30 probability/effectiveness variables, 8—almost all concerning treatment effectiveness—had at least one statistically-significant difference between the 2 groups regarding low, best, or high estimates. To convince Observers that treatment is effective would take a clinical trial with between 39 000 and 87 000 participants; to convince Treaters that treatment is not effective enough, between 97 000 and 114 000 participants. Observers’ calculated numbers needed to treat (NNTs) of about 150 000 are more consistent ( P = 0.0023) with their elicited maximum NTTs of about 500. Conclusion. Physicians not specifically trained provided enough data to specify complete individual decision models. From the estimates provided, no practical clinical trial could convince hematologists who would treat children on initial presentation with ITP just to simply observe them or could convince those who would just observe to instead treat with available agents. Perceived burdens could be better characterized, perhaps by including parental perceptions and preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Harold P. Lehmann & Nkossi Dambita & George R. Buchanan & James F. Casella, 2011. "Decision Modeling of Disagreements," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 805-815, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:6:p:805-815
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11400417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X11400417
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X11400417?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. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    2. Garthwaite, Paul H. & Kadane, Joseph B. & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2005. "Statistical Methods for Eliciting Probability Distributions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 100, pages 680-701, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    2. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    3. Kaitlyn Hastings & Clara Marquina & Jedidiah Morton & Dina Abushanab & Danielle Berkovic & Stella Talic & Ella Zomer & Danny Liew & Zanfina Ademi, 2022. "Projected New-Onset Cardiovascular Disease by Socioeconomic Group in Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 449-460, April.
    4. Andrea Marcellusi & Raffaella Viti & Loreta A. Kondili & Stefano Rosato & Stefano Vella & Francesco Saverio Mennini, 2019. "Economic Consequences of Investing in Anti-HCV Antiviral Treatment from the Italian NHS Perspective: A Real-World-Based Analysis of PITER Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 255-266, February.
    5. Risha Gidwani & Louise B. Russell, 2020. "Estimating Transition Probabilities from Published Evidence: A Tutorial for Decision Modelers," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(11), pages 1153-1164, November.
    6. Claire Copeland & Britta Turner & Gareth Powells & Kevin Wilson, 2022. "In Search of Complementarity: Insights from an Exercise in Quantifying Qualitative Energy Futures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, July.
    7. Joseph F. Levy & Marjorie A. Rosenberg, 2019. "A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Trajectories of Health Care Cost in Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(5), pages 593-604, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Jorge Luis García & James J. Heckman, 2021. "Early childhood education and life‐cycle health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(S1), pages 119-141, November.
    10. Tushar Srivastava & Nicholas R. Latimer & Paul Tappenden, 2021. "Estimation of Transition Probabilities for State-Transition Models: A Review of NICE Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(8), pages 869-878, August.
    11. Eleanor Heather & Katherine Payne & Mark Harrison & Deborah Symmons, 2014. "Including Adverse Drug Events in Economic Evaluations of Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Drugs for Adult Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review of Economic Decision Analytic Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 109-134, February.
    12. Manuel Gomes & Robert Aldridge & Peter Wylie & James Bell & Owen Epstein, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 3-D Computerized Tomography Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy for Imaging Symptomatic Gastroenterology Patients," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 107-117, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Miller, Joshua Benjamin & Sanjurjo, Adam, 2018. "How Experience Confirms the Gambler's Fallacy when Sample Size is Neglected," OSF Preprints m5xsk, Center for Open Science.
    15. Dai, Min & Jia, Yanwei & Kou, Steven, 2021. "The wisdom of the crowd and prediction markets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 561-578.
    16. A Zuashkiani & D Banjevic & A K S Jardine, 2009. "Estimating parameters of proportional hazards model based on expert knowledge and statistical data," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(12), pages 1621-1636, December.
    17. Wei Fang & Zhenru Wang & Michael B. Giles & Chris H. Jackson & Nicky J. Welton & Christophe Andrieu & Howard Thom, 2022. "Multilevel and Quasi Monte Carlo Methods for the Calculation of the Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 168-181, February.
    18. Martin Hoyle, 2008. "Future Drug Prices and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 589-602, July.
    19. Bauer, Annette & Knapp, Martin & Alvi, Mohsin & Chaudhry, Nasim & Gregoire, Alain & Malik, Abid & Sikander, Siham & Tayyaba, Kiran & Wagas, Ahmed & Husain, Nusrat, 2024. "Economic costs of perinatal depression and anxiety in a lower-middle income country: Pakistan," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122650, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Aris Angelis & Huseyin Naci & Allan Hackshaw, 2020. "Recalibrating Health Technology Assessment Methods for Cell and Gene Therapies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(12), pages 1297-1308, December.

    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:31:y:2011:i:6:p:805-815. 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.