IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v22y2024i4d10.1007_s40258-024-00887-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A structured process for the validation of a decision-analytic model: application to a cost-effectiveness model for risk-stratified national breast screening

Author

Listed:
  • Stuart J. Wright

    (Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester)

  • Ewan Gray

    (GRAIL)

  • Gabriel Rogers

    (Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester)

  • Anna Donten

    (Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester)

  • Katherine Payne

    (Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester)

Abstract

Background Decision-makers require knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of decision-analytic models used to evaluate healthcare interventions to be able to confidently use the results of such models to inform policy. A number of aspects of model validity have previously been described, but no systematic approach to assessing the validity of a model has been proposed. This study aimed to consolidate the different aspects of model validity into a step-by-step approach to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a decision-analytic model. Methods A pre-defined set of steps were used to conduct the validation process of an exemplar early decision-analytic-model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a risk-stratified national breast cancer screening programme [UK healthcare perspective; lifetime horizon; costs (£; 2021)]. Internal validation was assessed in terms of descriptive validity, technical validity and face validity. External validation was assessed in terms of operational validation, convergent validity (or corroboration) and predictive validity. Results The results outline the findings of each step of internal and external validation of the early decision-analytic-model and present the validated model (called ‘MANC-RISK-SCREEN’). The positive aspects in terms of meeting internal validation requirements are shown together with the remaining limitations of MANC-RISK-SCREEN. Conclusion Following a transparent and structured validation process, MANC-RISK-SCREEN has been shown to have satisfactory internal and external validity for use in informing resource allocation decision-making. We suggest that MANC-RISK-SCREEN can be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of exemplars of risk-stratified national breast cancer screening programmes (NBSP) from the UK perspective. Implications A step-by-step process for conducting the validation of a decision-analytic model was developed for future use by health economists. Using this approach may help researchers to fully demonstrate the strengths and limitations of their model to decision-makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Stuart J. Wright & Ewan Gray & Gabriel Rogers & Anna Donten & Katherine Payne, 2024. "A structured process for the validation of a decision-analytic model: application to a cost-effectiveness model for risk-stratified national breast screening," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 527-542, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:22:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00887-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00887-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-024-00887-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-024-00887-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark J. Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Mike Drummond & Chris McCabe, 2006. "Whither trial‐based economic evaluation for health care decision making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 677-687, July.
    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. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    3. Schulenburg J.-Matthias Graf von der & Vauth Christoph, 2007. "Nach welchen ökonomischen Methoden sollten Gesundheitsleistungen in Deutschland evaluiert werden? / According to Which Economic Methods Should Health Care Services Become Evaluated in Germany?," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 227(5-6), pages 787-806, October.
    4. Ana Sofia Oliveira Gonçalves & Dimitra Panteli & Lars Neeb & Tobias Kurth & Annette Aigner, 2022. "HIT-6 and EQ-5D-5L in patients with migraine: assessment of common latent constructs and development of a mapping algorithm," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(1), pages 47-57, February.
    5. Andrew Briggs, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Ferrari, Giulia & Torres-Rueda, Sergio & Michaels-Igbokwe, Christine & Watts, Charlotte & Jewkes, Rachel & Vassall, Anna, 2019. "Economic evaluation of public health interventions: an application to interventions for the prevention of violence against women and girls implemented by the “what works to prevent violence against wo," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103639, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    8. Sanjib Saha & Katarina Steen Carlsson & Ulf-G Gerdtham & Margareta K Eriksson & Lars Hagberg & Mats Eliasson & Pia Johansson, 2013. "Are Lifestyle Interventions in Primary Care Cost-Effective? – An Analysis Based on a Markov Model, Differences-In-Differences Approach and the Swedish Björknäs Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
    9. Zafar Zafari & Kristian Thorlund & J. FitzGerald & Carlo Marra & Mohsen Sadatsafavi, 2014. "Network vs. Pairwise Meta-Analyses: A Case Study of the Impact of an Evidence-Synthesis Paradigm on Value of Information Outcomes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 995-1004, October.
    10. Dyfrig Hughes & Joanna Charles & Dalia Dawoud & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Emily Holmes & Carys Jones & Paul Parham & Catrin Plumpton & Colin Ridyard & Huw Lloyd-Williams & Eifiona Wood & Seow Tien Yeo, 2016. "Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 447-461, May.
    11. Dixon, Padraig & Harrison, Sean & Hollingworth, William & Davies, Neil M. & Davey Smith, George, 2022. "Estimating the causal effect of liability to disease on healthcare costs using Mendelian Randomization," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    12. Candio, Paolo & Meads, David & Hill, Andrew J. & Bojke, Laura, 2020. "Modelling the impact of physical activity on public health: A review and critique," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1155-1164.
    13. Ulla Griffiths & Benedict Anigbogu & Kiran Nanchahal, 2012. "Economic evaluations of adult weight management interventions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 145-162, May.
    14. John W. Stevens, 2018. "Using Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials in Economic Models: What Information is Relevant and is There a Minimum Amount of Sample Data Required to Make Decisions?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(10), pages 1135-1141, October.
    15. Kerry Bell & Belen Corbacho & Sarah Ronaldson & Gerry Richardson & David Torgerson & Michael Robling, 2018. "The impact of pre and perinatal lifestyle factors on child long term health and social outcomes: a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-18, December.
    16. Edward Wilson, 2015. "A Practical Guide to Value of Information Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 105-121, February.
    17. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Tony Culyer, 2007. "Mark versus Luke? Appropriate Methods for the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions," Working Papers 031cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    18. Christoffer Lilja Terjesen & Julia Kovaleva & Lars Ehlers, 2017. "Early Assessment of the Likely Cost Effectiveness of Single-Use Flexible Video Bronchoscopes," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 133-141, June.
    19. Takahashi, R. & Todo, Y., 2018. "When do consumers stand up for the environment? Evidence from a large-scale social experiment to promote environmentally friendly coffee," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277507, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. J. Caro & Jörgen Möller, 2014. "Decision-Analytic Models: Current Methodological Challenges," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 943-950, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:22:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00887-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.