IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v39y2021i5d10.1007_s40273-021-01009-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using a Modified Delphi Approach to Gain Consensus on Relevant Comparators in a Cost-Effectiveness Model: Application to Prostate Cancer Screening

Author

Listed:
  • Edna Keeney

    (University of Bristol)

  • Howard Thom

    (University of Bristol
    National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol)

  • Emma Turner

    (University of Bristol)

  • Richard M. Martin

    (National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol
    University of Bristol
    University of Bristol)

  • Sabina Sanghera

    (University of Bristol)

Abstract

Objective Challenges can exist when framing the decision question in a cost-effectiveness analysis, particularly when there is disagreement among experts on relevant comparators. Using prostate cancer screening and recent developments in risk stratification, early-detection biomarkers, and diagnostic technologies as a case study, we report a modified Delphi approach to handle decision-question uncertainty. Methods The study involved two rounds of anonymous online questionnaires to identify the prostate cancer screening strategies that international researchers, clinicians and decision makers felt important to consider in a cost-effectiveness model. Both purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit experts. The questionnaire was based on a review of the literature and was piloted for language, comprehension and ease of use prior to dissemination. In Round 1, respondents indicated their preferred screening strategy (including no screening) through a series of multiple-choice questions. The responses informed a set of 13 consensus statements, which respondents ranked their agreement with on a 9-point Likert scale (Round 2). Consensus was considered reached if > 70% of participants indicated agreement and

Suggested Citation

  • Edna Keeney & Howard Thom & Emma Turner & Richard M. Martin & Sabina Sanghera, 2021. "Using a Modified Delphi Approach to Gain Consensus on Relevant Comparators in a Cost-Effectiveness Model: Application to Prostate Cancer Screening," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 589-600, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01009-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01009-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01009-6
    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/s40273-021-01009-6?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. Yaling Yang & Lucy Abel & James Buchanan & Thomas Fanshawe & Bethany Shinkins, 2019. "Use of Decision Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests: An Appraisal and Review of Health Technology Assessments in the UK," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 281-291, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Journal round-up: PharmacoEconomics 39(5)
      by Don Husereau in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-07-16 06:00:06

    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.

      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:39:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01009-6. 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.