Author
Listed:
- Junfeng Wang
(University Medical Center Utrecht
Utrecht University)
- Xavier Pouwels
(University of Twente)
- Bram Ramaekers
(Maastricht University Medical Center+, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute)
- Geert Frederix
(University Medical Center Utrecht)
- Chris Lieshout
(University Medical Center Utrecht)
- Rudolf Hoogenveen
(National Institute for Public Health and the Environment)
- Xinyu Li
(Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy)
- G. Ardine Wit
(University Medical Center Utrecht
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam & Amsterdam Public Health Institute)
- Manuela Joore
(Maastricht University Medical Center+, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute)
- Hendrik Koffijberg
(University of Twente)
- Anoukh Giessen
(National Institute for Public Health and the Environment)
- Saskia Knies
(National Health Care Institute)
- Talitha Feenstra
(Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment)
Abstract
Background The current use of health economic decision models in HTA is mostly confined to single use cases, which may be inefficient and result in little consistency over different treatment comparisons, and consequently inconsistent health policy decisions, for the same disorder. Multi-use disease models (MUDMs) (other terms: generic models, whole disease models, disease models) may offer a solution. However, much is uncertain about their definition and application. The current research aimed to develop a blueprint for the application of MUDMs. Methods We elicited expert opinion using a two-round modified Delphi process. The panel consisted of experts and stakeholders in health economic modelling from various professional backgrounds. The first questionnaire concerned definition, terminology, potential applications, issues and recommendations for MUDMs and was based on an exploratory scoping review. In the second round, the panel members were asked to reconsider their input, based on feedback regarding first-round results, and to score issues and recommendations for priority. Finally, adding input from external advisors and policy makers in a structured way, an overview of issues and challenges was developed during two team consensus meetings. Results In total, 54 respondents contributed to the panel results. The term ‘multi-use disease models’ was proposed and agreed upon, and a definition was provided. The panel prioritized 10 potential applications (with comparing alternative policies and supporting resource allocation decisions as the top 2), while 20 issues (with model transparency and stakeholders’ roles as the top 2) were identified as challenges. Opinions on potential features concerning operationalization of multi-use models were given, with 11 of these subsequently receiving high priority scores (regular updates and revalidation after updates were the top 2). Conclusions MUDMs would improve on current decision support regarding cost-effectiveness information. Given feasibility challenges, this would be most relevant for diseases with multiple treatments, large burden of disease and requiring more complex models. The current overview offers policy makers a starting point to organize the development, use, and maintenance of MUDMs and to support choices concerning which diseases and policy decisions they will be helpful for.
Suggested Citation
Junfeng Wang & Xavier Pouwels & Bram Ramaekers & Geert Frederix & Chris Lieshout & Rudolf Hoogenveen & Xinyu Li & G. Ardine Wit & Manuela Joore & Hendrik Koffijberg & Anoukh Giessen & Saskia Knies & T, 2024.
"A Blueprint for Multi-use Disease Modeling in Health Economics: Results from Two Expert-Panel Consultations,"
PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(7), pages 797-810, July.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01376-w
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01376-w
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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.
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:42:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01376-w. 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.