IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v36y2016i3p321-334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Practical Application of Value of Information and Prospective Payback of Research to Prioritize Evaluative Research

Author

Listed:
  • Lazaros Andronis
  • Lucinda J. Billingham
  • Stirling Bryan
  • Nicholas D. James
  • Pelham M. Barton

Abstract

Background and Objectives. Efforts to ensure that funded research represents “value for money†have led to increasing calls for the use of analytic methods in research prioritization. A number of analytic approaches have been proposed to assist research funding decisions, the most prominent of which are value of information (VOI) and prospective payback of research (PPoR). Despite the increasing interest in the topic, there are insufficient VOI and PPoR applications on the same case study to contrast their methods and compare their outcomes. We undertook VOI and PPoR analyses to determine the value of conducting 2 proposed research programs. The application served as a vehicle for identifying differences and similarities between the methods, provided insight into the assumptions and practical requirements of undertaking prospective analyses for research prioritization, and highlighted areas for future research. Methods. VOI and PPoR were applied to case studies representing proposals for clinical trials in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and prostate cancer. Decision models were built to synthesize the evidence available prior to the funding decision. VOI (expected value of perfect and sample information) and PPoR (PATHS model) analyses were undertaken using the developed models. Results and Conclusions. VOI and PPoR results agreed in direction, suggesting that the proposed trials would be cost-effective investments. However, results differed in magnitude, largely due to the way each method conceptualizes the possible outcomes of further research and the implementation of research results in practice. Compared with VOI, PPoR is less complex but requires more assumptions. Although the approaches are not free from limitations, they can provide useful input for research funding decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Lazaros Andronis & Lucinda J. Billingham & Stirling Bryan & Nicholas D. James & Pelham M. Barton, 2016. "A Practical Application of Value of Information and Prospective Payback of Research to Prioritize Evaluative Research," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 321-334, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:3:p:321-334
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15594369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15594369
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15594369?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. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Townsend, Joy & Buxton, Martin, 1997. "Cost effectiveness scenario analysis for a proposed trial of hormone replacement therapy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 181-194, March.
    4. Sugden, Robert & Williams, Alan, 1978. "The Principles of Practical Cost-Benefit Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198770411.
    5. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, 1996. "An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority‐setting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(6), pages 513-524, November.
    6. Drummond, Michael F. & Davies, Linda M. & Ferris, Frederick L., 1992. "Assessing the costs and benefits of medical research: The diabetic retinopathy study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 973-981, May.
    7. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, "undated". "An Economic Approach to Clinical Trial Design and Research Priority Setting," Discussion Papers 96/19, Department of Economics, University of York.
    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. 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. Fleurence, Rachael L. & Torgerson, David J., 2004. "Setting priorities for research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-10, July.
    3. Joanna Thorn & Joanna Coast & Lazaros Andronis, 2016. "Interpretation of the Expected Value of Perfect Information and Research Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 285-295, April.
    4. Hawre Jalal & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Karen M. Kuntz, 2015. "Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 584-595, July.
    5. A C Bouman & A J ten Cate-Hoek & B L T Ramaekers & M A Joore, 2015. "Sample Size Estimation for Non-Inferiority Trials: Frequentist Approach versus Decision Theory Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    6. Lazaros Andronis & Pelham M. Barton, 2016. "Adjusting Estimates of the Expected Value of Information for Implementation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 296-307, April.
    7. A. E. Ades & G. Lu & K. Claxton, 2004. "Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations in Medical Decision Modeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 207-227, March.
    8. Josh J. Carlson & Rahber Thariani & Josh Roth & Julie Gralow & N. Lynn Henry & Laura Esmail & Pat Deverka & Scott D. Ramsey & Laurence Baker & David L. Veenstra, 2013. "Value-of-Information Analysis within a Stakeholder-Driven Research Prioritization Process in a US Setting: An Application in Cancer Genomics," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 463-471, May.
    9. Jennifer Uyei & R. Scott Braithwaite, 2016. "Are There Scenarios When the Use of Non–Placebo-Control Groups in Experimental Trial Designs Increase Expected Value to Society?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(1), pages 20-30, January.
    10. Manuel A. Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark J. Sculpher, 2014. "The Value of Heterogeneity for Cost-Effectiveness Subgroup Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 951-964, November.
    11. 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, December.
    12. Karnon, Jonathan, 2002. "Planning the efficient allocation of research funds: an adapted application of a non-parametric Bayesian value of information analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 329-347, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Simon Eckermann & Tim Coelli, 2008. "Including quality attributes in a model of health care efficiency: A net benefit approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032008, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    15. Neil Hawkins & Mark Sculpher & David Epstein, 2005. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Chronic Disease: Using R to Incorporate Time Dependency of Treatment Response," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 511-519, September.
    16. Sofia Dias & Alex J. Sutton & Nicky J. Welton & A. E. Ades, 2013. "Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 6," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 671-678, July.
    17. Samer A. Kharroubi & Alan Brennan & Mark Strong, 2011. "Estimating Expected Value of Sample Information for Incomplete Data Models Using Bayesian Approximation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 839-852, November.
    18. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    19. Claire McKenna & Karl Claxton, 2011. "Addressing Adoption and Research Design Decisions Simultaneously," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 853-865, November.
    20. Eric Jutkowitz & Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Hyon K. Choi & Karen M. Kuntz & Hawre Jalal, 2017. "Prioritizing Future Research on Allopurinol and Febuxostat for the Management of Gout: Value of Information Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(10), pages 1073-1085, October.

    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:36:y:2016:i:3:p:321-334. 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.