Content of health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey
Objectives Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials. Methods A list of potential...
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Elsevier
2020
|
| _version_ | 1826285297179033600 |
|---|---|
| author | Thorn, JC Davies, CF Brookes, ST Noble, SM Dritsaki, M Gray, E Hughes, DA Mihaylova, B Petrou, S Ridyard, C Sach, T Wilson, ECF Wordsworth, S Hollingworth, W |
| author_facet | Thorn, JC Davies, CF Brookes, ST Noble, SM Dritsaki, M Gray, E Hughes, DA Mihaylova, B Petrou, S Ridyard, C Sach, T Wilson, ECF Wordsworth, S Hollingworth, W |
| author_sort | Thorn, JC |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Objectives
Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials.
Methods
A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant’s own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus.
Results
62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items.
Conclusions
Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T01:26:43Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:9239ca68-22be-4147-9a87-8ceebad0c556 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T01:26:43Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:9239ca68-22be-4147-9a87-8ceebad0c5562022-03-26T23:24:02ZContent of health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus surveyJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:9239ca68-22be-4147-9a87-8ceebad0c556EnglishSymplectic ElementsElsevier2020Thorn, JCDavies, CFBrookes, STNoble, SMDritsaki, MGray, EHughes, DAMihaylova, BPetrou, SRidyard, CSach, TWilson, ECFWordsworth, SHollingworth, WObjectives Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials. Methods A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant’s own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus. Results 62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items. Conclusions Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP. |
| spellingShingle | Thorn, JC Davies, CF Brookes, ST Noble, SM Dritsaki, M Gray, E Hughes, DA Mihaylova, B Petrou, S Ridyard, C Sach, T Wilson, ECF Wordsworth, S Hollingworth, W Content of health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey |
| title | Content of health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey |
| title_full | Content of health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey |
| title_fullStr | Content of health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey |
| title_full_unstemmed | Content of health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey |
| title_short | Content of health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey |
| title_sort | content of health economics analysis plans heaps for trial based economic evaluations expert delphi consensus survey |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT thornjc contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT daviescf contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT brookesst contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT noblesm contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT dritsakim contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT graye contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT hughesda contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT mihaylovab contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT petrous contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT ridyardc contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT sacht contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT wilsonecf contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT wordsworths contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey AT hollingworthw contentofhealtheconomicsanalysisplansheapsfortrialbasedeconomicevaluationsexpertdelphiconsensussurvey |