IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v29y2011i1p51-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Calibrating Models in Economic Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Karnon
  • Tazio Vanni

Abstract

Background: The importance of assessing the accuracy of health economic decision models is widely recognized. Many applied decision models (implicitly) assume that the process of identifying relevant values for a model’s input parameters is sufficient to prove the model’s accuracy. The selection of infeasible combinations of input parameter values is most likely in the context of probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), where parameter values are drawn from independently specified probability distributions for each model parameter. Model calibration involves the identification of input parameter values that produce model output parameters that best predict observed data. Methods: An empirical comparison of three key calibration issues is presented: the applied measure of goodness of fit (GOF); the search strategy for selecting sets of input parameter values; and the convergence criteria for determining acceptable GOF. The comparisons are presented in the context of probabilistic calibration, a widely applicable approach to calibration that can be easily integrated with PSA. The appendix provides a user’s guide to probabilistic calibration, with the reader invited to download the Microsoft® Excel-based model reported in this article. Results: The calibrated models consistently provided higher mean estimates of the models’ output parameter, illustrating the potential gain in accuracy derived from calibrating decision models. Model uncertainty was also reduced. The chi-squared GOF measure differentiated between the accuracy of different parameter sets to a far greater degree than the likelihood GOF measure. The guided search strategy produced higher mean estimates of the models’ output parameter, as well as a narrower range of predicted output values, which may reflect greater precision in the identification of candidate parameter sets or more limited coverage of the parameter space. The broader convergence threshold resulted in lower mean estimates of the models’ output, and slightly wider ranges, which were closer to the outputs associated with the non-calibrated approach. Conclusions: Probabilistic calibration provides a broadly applicable method that will improve the relevance of health economic decision models, and simultaneously reduce model uncertainty. The analyses reported in this paper inform the more efficient and accurate application of calibration methods for health economic decision models. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2011

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Karnon & Tazio Vanni, 2011. "Calibrating Models in Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 51-62, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:29:y:2011:i:1:p:51-62
    DOI: 10.2165/11584610-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11584610-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11584610-000000000-00000?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. Tazio Vanni & Jonathan Karnon & Jason Madan & Richard White & W. Edmunds & Anna Foss & Rosa Legood, 2011. "Calibrating Models in Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 35-49, January.
    2. Jonathan Karnon & Thomas Delea & Vicki Barghout, 2008. "Cost utility analysis of early adjuvant letrozole or anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early invasive breast cancer: the UK perspective," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(2), pages 171-183, May.
    3. Mark Jit & Nigel Gay & Kate Soldan & Yoon Hong Choi & William John Edmunds, 2010. "Estimating Progression Rates for Human Papillomavirus Infection From Epidemiological Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 84-98, January.
    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. Victoria A Wade & Jonathan Karnon & Jaklin A Eliott & Janet E Hiller, 2012. "Home Videophones Improve Direct Observation in Tuberculosis Treatment: A Mixed Methods Evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-13, November.
    2. Meimei Wang & Steffen Flessa, 2020. "Modelling Covid-19 under uncertainty: what can we expect?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 665-668, July.
    3. Tazio Vanni & Jonathan Karnon & Jason Madan & Richard White & W. Edmunds & Anna Foss & Rosa Legood, 2011. "Calibrating Models in Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 35-49, January.
    4. Xiuxian Wang & Na Geng & Jianxin Qiu & Zhibin Jiang & Liping Zhou, 2020. "Markov model and meta-heuristics combined method for cost-effectiveness analysis," Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 213-235, March.
    5. C Marijn Hazelbag & Jonathan Dushoff & Emanuel M Dominic & Zinhle E Mthombothi & Wim Delva, 2020. "Calibration of individual-based models to epidemiological data: A systematic review," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Douglas Taylor & Vivek Pawar & Denise Kruzikas & Kristen Gilmore & Myrlene Sanon & Milton Weinstein, 2012. "Incorporating Calibrated Model Parameters into Sensitivity Analyses," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 119-126, February.
    8. Jon Duan & G. Cornelis van Kooten & A. T. M. Hasibul Islam, 2023. "Calibration of Grid Models for Analyzing Energy Policies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-21, January.
    9. Jing Voon Chen & Julia L. Higle & Michael Hintlian, 2018. "A systematic approach for examining the impact of calibration uncertainty in disease modeling," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 541-561, October.
    10. Penny R. Breeze & Hazel Squires & Kate Ennis & Petra Meier & Kate Hayes & Nik Lomax & Alan Shiell & Frank Kee & Frank de Vocht & Martin O’Flaherty & Nigel Gilbert & Robin Purshouse & Stewart Robinson , 2023. "Guidance on the use of complex systems models for economic evaluations of public health interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(7), pages 1603-1625, July.
    11. Steffen Flessa & Dominik Dietz & Elisabete Weiderpass, 2016. "Health policy support under extreme uncertainty: the case of cervical cancer in Cambodia," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(3), pages 183-218, November.

    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. Jing Voon Chen & Julia L. Higle & Michael Hintlian, 2018. "A systematic approach for examining the impact of calibration uncertainty in disease modeling," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 541-561, October.
    2. Meimei Wang & Steffen Flessa, 2020. "Modelling Covid-19 under uncertainty: what can we expect?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 665-668, July.
    3. Xiuxian Wang & Na Geng & Jianxin Qiu & Zhibin Jiang & Liping Zhou, 2020. "Markov model and meta-heuristics combined method for cost-effectiveness analysis," Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 213-235, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Tazio Vanni & Jonathan Karnon & Jason Madan & Richard White & W. Edmunds & Anna Foss & Rosa Legood, 2011. "Calibrating Models in Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 35-49, January.
    6. Ava A John-Baptiste & Wei Wu & Paula Rochon & Geoffrey M Anderson & Chaim M Bell, 2013. "A Systematic Review and Methodological Evaluation of Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Aromatase Inhibitors versus Tamoxifen in Early Stage Breast Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-9, May.
    7. Jon Duan & G. Cornelis van Kooten & A. T. M. Hasibul Islam, 2023. "Calibration of Grid Models for Analyzing Energy Policies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Douglas Taylor & Vivek Pawar & Denise Kruzikas & Kristen Gilmore & Myrlene Sanon & Milton Weinstein, 2012. "Incorporating Calibrated Model Parameters into Sensitivity Analyses," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 119-126, February.
    9. Steffen Flessa & Dominik Dietz & Elisabete Weiderpass, 2016. "Health policy support under extreme uncertainty: the case of cervical cancer in Cambodia," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(3), pages 183-218, November.
    10. Penny R. Breeze & Hazel Squires & Kate Ennis & Petra Meier & Kate Hayes & Nik Lomax & Alan Shiell & Frank Kee & Frank de Vocht & Martin O’Flaherty & Nigel Gilbert & Robin Purshouse & Stewart Robinson , 2023. "Guidance on the use of complex systems models for economic evaluations of public health interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(7), pages 1603-1625, July.
    11. C Marijn Hazelbag & Jonathan Dushoff & Emanuel M Dominic & Zinhle E Mthombothi & Wim Delva, 2020. "Calibration of individual-based models to epidemiological data: A systematic review," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, May.

    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:pharme:v:29:y:2011:i:1:p:51-62. 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.